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 Local Government Institute called A Roadmap for Government Transformation.

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.

Leadership
But there are also factors that cannot so easily be pictured in the report's many graphs. One is referred to as "leadership."

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.

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]."

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.

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.

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.

Trust
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).

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.

Another way to guarantee distrust is a lack of transparency, for example, secret deals on the side with certain jurisdictions.

These are not technically conflict of interest issues, but there are parallels worthy of noting.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---