Writing

Efficiency Through Consolidation?

Tom Brokaw recently penned a column in the New York Times suggesting that this recession is an opportunity to press the reset button and that one aspect we should focus on reforming is the efficiency of government. Specifically, Brokaw suggests that state governments could save billions by consolidating municipal governments in the way that Miami-Dade, Nashville-Davidson or Jacksonville-Duval have merged services.

He points to a New York State study from a few years ago that concluded that “New Yorkers could save more than a billion dollars a year by consolidating and sharing local government responsibilities like public security, health, roads and education.” Brokaw also suggests that North and South Dakota, which are home to 17 state universities combined, could get “a bigger bang for their higher education buck if they consolidated their smaller institutions… with satellite campuses but a common administration and shared standards.”

I like Brokaw’s reasoning.

But the folks at the rural blog Daily Yonder bring up some good counterpoints. They suggest that big government is not always more helpful or efficient (true) and that the cost of administration rises when geography expands. West Virginia, for example, spent millions closing small schools and consolidating education systems, but now faces the burden of busing some students over an hour to their schools and hiring more officials to deal will the challenges of massive school districts.

“Small towns aren’t big spenders,” notes Daily Yonder blogger Bill Bishop. He notes that North Dakota has about the same amount of counties as California, but that North Dakota is running a surplus while California has a 13.6% budget gap. Message: While consolidation might streamline the big government bureaucracies of the Empire State, it’d be solving a problem that doesn’t exist in small town America.

I think both Brokaw and Bishop have good points, and I actually think that the real solution lies somewhere in the middle. Let me give you two examples. I went to school at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. The city of Schenectady runs an independent municipal government within the county of Schenectady. Both are fraught with crime, corruption and unemployment, although the problem is particularly pronounced in the city of Schenectady, which is a classic Rust Belt collapsed town.

There’s been talk of consolidating the two, which would likely save millions on police and eduction. But county officials don’t want the city’s problems, and city officials don’t want to relinquish power to the county. And so the community decays.

Now, move your attention 400 miles down the coast to Arlington, Virginia, where I live. Arlington is a geographically small county nestled between the District and booming Fairfax County. Arlington has its own schools and police independent of Fairfax and is doing just fine. In fact, it’s doing great. It’s been named the most educated community in the nation and was rated “one of the best places to [ride] out the recession.” It has its own cultural identity independent of the District and Fairfax. It would make no sense to merge.

So here’s the solution: Struggling governments, such as New York State and some in the Rust Belt, ought to merge in the same way that General Motors is streamlining. I don’t mean to hold up GM as a model of efficiency, but the motor company used to have seven brands with seven networks of dealerships, and is now consolidating. Schenectady city and county should combine. Maybe Baltimore city and county should consider it, too.

Communities that are prospering, such as Arlington, or even running a positive balance sheet, such as North Dakota, should probably keep serving their citizens and business the way they are now. Don’t shutter the local courthouse and throw a wet towel on hometown pride, and don’t force two happy and independent entities into an awkward marriage.

Of course, the big problem here is that all politics is local. If powerbrokers aren’t interested in surrendering their lifeblood, they’re probably going to do everything they can to stop it. But if that hurdle can be overcome, consolidation is an interesting choice for more efficient government.

2 Responses to “Efficiency Through Consolidation?”

  1. Jim Linnane

    7 May 2009 at 3:30 pm

    There’s no reason why general governments have to be consolidated. Certain functions could be made more efficient through cooperative agreements or contracting out. Also, do not think that the local government determines the success or failure of the local economy. Politicians love to brag about prosperity and to cut ribbons or pose with shovels whenever a business opens or expands. Most reputable studies show that investors take a lot of factors into consideration when deciding where to relocate and most of those factors are beyond the control of local or state government. As far as I can tell, both Dakotas seem to be well-governed, but, like my own state, they are in the middle of nowhere and have winters that most people, not me, think are cold. If weather and location were not factors, would you not prefer the government of either Dakota to the governments of Texas or Louisiana?

  2. Jay O'Callaghan

    7 May 2009 at 11:19 pm

    Actually Miami-Dade county never merged services that much as was envisoned when metropolitan Dade County government was created in 1957 by short sighted reformers led by the Miami Herald and the League of Women Voters. One of the few areas that was merged were libraries but there was much resistance to merging basic services such as law enforcement.

    Instead Miami’s metro government created an additional and very expensive layer of government at the county level. The trend in Miami-Dade county has been away from centralized top down metro government since the early 1990s when voters finally approved single member districts for the county commission.

    Also, more and more smaller municpal governments have been created in Key Biscayne, Miami Lakes, Cutler Bay, Pinecrest. Palmetto Bay since then as more and more voters have realized that smaller government closer to the people is better than depending on a giant bureaucratic county government for municpal services. Believe it or not most residents of Miami-Dade County still live in the unincorporated area which is serviced by the county government.

    Between 1957 and 1993 Miami-Dade’s metro government was almost a dictatorship under an appointed county manager who was almost impossible to remove by voters. The manager was appointed by a nine member commission which was elected throughout the entire county of over two million people. Also, the commission was never on the ballot in one election and was elected in a non-partisan primary with low voter turnout.

    The commission was beholden to high turnout condominium voters and major metropolitan interests like the Miami Herald.

    Even the Herald finally admitted in 1993 that it was time to switch to a system with a county commission elected from districts and a directly elected county executive who appointed a county administrator.


PHVsPjwvdWw+