The great American humorist and social commentator Will Rogers once quipped, “thank heavens, we don’t get the government we pay for.”  His insightful message has been somewhat eroded by the changing times in which we live.  Today we can’t afford the government we have and if ever we needed “our money’s worth,” it is now as ominous economic clouds foretell serious consequences for governmental and civic organizations at all levels.  Over the past few decades we have witnessed phenomenal growth in the number and scope of government.  While much attention has been focused on federal issues, the impending impact is at state and local levels where government officials are already scurrying around desperate to find solutions to the crisis caused by a declining revenue base.  Local government and its often overlooked partners, non-governmental organizations, to include charities, are beginning to join hands to tackle problems that may very well defy solutions within the established political system.  Traditionally these same agencies have at times resorted either by cutting services or increasing taxes.  These options will not be palatable to the majority of citizens.  Having grown accustomed to a level of services that will not be surrendered willingly, the electorate expects bold innovative thought in finding alternatives to this economic and political dilemma.   

It has been said that “adversity is the mother of invention.”  All too often local government, in particular, tends to procrastinate, avoiding issues until it has reached critical mass.  Faced with an eroding tax base, inflationary pressures and the demand for services, local government must also plan ahead for the impact of reduced state support in a variety of areas.  This is a very real potential consequence of the state government’s streamlining initiative.  While this much needed state response to a very real budget crisis in the long-run will produce laudable improvements in economies and efficiencies in state government, it may also shift functional burdens to the local level.  While great pains are taken to avoid these consequences, many secondary and tertiary effects cannot be gauged or even avoided in certain cases.  Local governments must prepare to shoulder additional burdens.

How we prepare at the local level and adjust will determine our future ability to maintain community standards and quality of life.  In order to conserve our cherished life style we must look for innovative change far beyond our traditional approaches.  Perhaps it is time to look for regional solutions to local issues and to concurrently question the “status quo” we find in the organization of local government.  Regionalization may offer alternatives. 

Suggestions on how we might streamline local government at the parish and municipal level are worth consideration and should be aggressively reviewed simultaneously with the streamlining initiatives that will invariably be implemented at the state level as a result of the initial Government Streamlining Commission’s recommendations, soon to be forthcoming.  Some piecemeal measures have been implemented.  But most have not.  So despite much previous hard work and good thinking, the complexity of local government has actually grown, compounding over time. 

Part of our challenge is that locally we are mired in an 1800’s government model. A government that is cumbersome, complex and redundant.  The structure itself, a system of independent government tiers from districts, wards and townships to parish, hinders our ability to provide equitable, efficient and effective services.  Most importantly, this traditional system of boundaries limits our ability to respond quickly to a rapidly changing economy and world. 

Many of our current jurisdictions are simply not sized correctly to provide the extent of services today’s reality demands.  We must look for economies of scale.  There is too much duplication and not enough cooperation among local governments, to include other parishes within our region.  After all, there was a time, and perhaps for good reason, that adjacent parishes were part of St. Tammany.  Realignment is not practical but there are joint measures that could be taken which retain acceptable levels of local autonomy. 

The definition of “local” has changed.  With communications and travel means greatly expanded, local issues have become more and more regional concerns.  Cooperative agreements and partnerships that foster the consolidation of support services and functions at the parish level are well worth consideration.  This would expand what we already have with a “shared” District Attorney, Judicial District, Juvenile Detention facility and other endeavors.  Perhaps we should consider the consolidation of other functions to include the Registrar of Voters, Clerk of Court, Coroner’s Office, Mosquito Abatement, Emergency Management and numerous other administrative offices, to name just a few. 

At the Parish level we should consider the alignment of functions into consolidated fire protection, public safety, planning and zoning, utilities, water and sewer, emergency response as well as many common administrative functions.  Public services account for a significant portion of local government spending.  Costs are increasing as citizens demand higher levels of services at the same time that these services have become increasingly more sophisticated, requiring specialized training and equipment.  Consolidation of public safety services has an enormous potential to provide improved services, equity of service and cost savings.  Local consolidation and even regionalization are viable options.   

These are difficult times and require difficult decisions.  Will we remain bogged in a dated model for government or will we demand a new model to meet the ever changing demands of today’s environment?  Let’s at least open consolidation and regionalization up for debate before unpalatable solutions are forced upon us.  Changing and difficult times require new thought and action.  To quote Will Rogers again “the best way out of difficulty is through it.”  Let’s get what we’re paying for and get through it by aggressively pursuing governmental economies and efficiencies through consolidation, or perhaps even regionalization. 

My two cents … for what it’s worth.