Do you favor government consolidation to save tax dollars?

Categories:

Comments

# Submitted by Michael (not verified) on Tue, 01/22/2008 - 12:12.

Consolidation of government services, although seemingly quite unlikely, can be very positive for our communities. However, given the realities of "process" in this region, emphasis on government efficiency could be much more likely. Transparency, accountability and genuine open and honest communication is critical. And these factors must be applied to the measures employed by area governments to address defined and agreed upon issues e.g., economy, education, crime that directly impact the viability and livability of a community; programs and services identified and implemented that are designed to address issues; the investment (financial and personnel) made by a government to implement defined and shared (with residents) programs to address issues; clear and specific assessments that identify the degree of success and/or failure of defined programs; specific revisions and/or changes to programs that do not reach planned outcomes.

It is likely that the degree of inefficiency and waste in government can be easily identified and addressed with transparency, accountability and open communication. The likelihood of this actually occurring, however, is also unlikely, just as government consolidation appears to be.

Bottom line, no trust, no faith...simply rhetoric.







		

		

			#
			Submitted by Robert J Shoens (not verified) on Tue, 01/22/2008 - 12:38.		

		
Government consolidation needs to happen for several reasons.

1. Reduce costs and expenses

2. Have a greater impact or force with the state and federal levels.

3. Improve and narrow focus for regional economic growth, regional education needs, and regional cleanup needs, land use needs, regional transportation needs, etc.

4. Increase and improve our talent pool of qualified personel to effectively run, give direction, and market this new governmental region.

		

	











		

		

			#
			Submitted by Arnold L. Johnson (not verified) on Tue, 01/22/2008 - 14:36.		

		
How do you box a system that changes with the political climate? The Repubs want less gov and the Dems want more, to privatize or gov control through regulations. If government can't decide which services are indispensable there is no way to consolidate what might go away with a change of administration.

Beside having a winds of change problem, there is a jurisdiction and information sharing problem.

The government needs to upgrade the computers and communications infrastructure and deal with efficiently sharing information when necessary. We shouldn't have to drive to Columbus to do state business.


I think the OneCommunity project is a good example of an consolidation effort. We in Lorain, Ohio also have the Employee Network. The center gives access to all the state and county services in one building. It's a good working model. 


Government is still about having people to do the job. Too few or too many and the whole set up wastes money.

		

	











		

		

			#
			Submitted by P. Jeffrey (not verified) on Tue, 01/22/2008 - 16:39.		

		
While the GOP says it wants to decrease government, it never manages to do it. The number of state jobs in Columbus keeps growing. Whatever party is in power seems to want to get as many of their supporters on the payroll as they can manage. The voters need to impress on both parties that we want efficiency in service, not reduced service.

		

	











		

		

			#
			Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/23/2008 - 11:51.		

		
Consolidation for the sake of shrinking government is not the answer.  Proper jurisdiction of issues is.  e.g. School funding use to be a local issue but in our mobile economy this is now a state issue through high school and and national issue for universities.

		

	











		

		

			#
			Submitted by Arnold L. Johnson (not verified) on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 13:30.		

		
I think you are so right that the jurisdiction of issues might be a source of problems. The state has said because we on the local level can't come up with solutions it is better that the state decides. If our local issues get sent up the ladder to the Feds, then what we usually get in return is limited funding with stipulations and mandates attached. The funds are spent up or cut but the stipulations and mandates live on. Every layer of gov an issue must go "through" to get resolved means the local focus is lost in a sea of larger concerns. This process continues until "pork" is produced. Should local, state and federal gov each have committees and staff dealing with the same issues? Is that redundant?