The Cons of Consolidated Government

From: The Pros and Cons of Consolidated Government
By: Patrick Hardy, MTAS, 2007

Introduction

This essay is meant to provide a list of items to consider when examining city/county consolidated government. These are presented in the form of a list of “pros” and “cons”. The list is by no means all inclusive. Certainly there are other items which should be deliberated, especially in light of particular circumstances surrounding any given consolidation effort.

Whether any particular item belongs of the list of “pros” or on the list of “cons” may depend on which jurisdiction you are from. That’s because an item may be a “pro” to one jurisdiction but a “con” to another. This list was generated from articles and books written on the subject of consolidation and thus represents the opinions or perceptions of these authors. Therefore these views may or may not apply in other circumstances, and as noted in a previous paper, very little “hard” (empirical) research exists which verifies some of these opinions.

The “Cons” of Consolidation

1. Changes in Structure: County and city governments are each used to operating with a certain structure. If consolidation occurs that structure will change for both jurisdictions.

Counties operate with what is largely a “politically dominated”, fragmented structure. That is, they have a great number of elected officials with quasi-independent offices, including an elected executive. Cities on the other hand are more centralized, with very few elected officials, usually only the Board, and an appointed executive. Under a consolidated arrangement there will normally be fewer elected officials (but more than in a typical city), and an appointed or elected executive. This “hybrid” form, which results in alterations to both city and county structures, may present challenges which are difficult for both jurisdictions to overcome. Since a number of county elected positions will normally be eliminated, these office holders may be unwilling to support to such a structure. On the other hand, with the addition of more elected offices, city officials may also have difficulty supporting a structure which they see as too fragmented. Let’s look more closely at the specifics of existing State law as it relates to a consolidated structure.

The Tennessee Constitution requires that all county governments, including a consolidated government, have at least 5 elected “constitutional offices.” These include the Sheriff, County Clerk, Assessor of Property, Trustee, and a Register (see Tennessee Constitution, Article VII Section 1.). Under other provisions of the Constitution there is a required elected Circuit Court Clerk (who may be either a county or district officer – the Legislature has chosen to make this a county office). There is also a Clerk and Master who is appointed by the Chancellors. The Tennessee Constitution, Article VII Section 1 further states that a consolidated government is exempt from other constitutional mandates requiring a county executive and a county legislative body (the new consolidated government will have its own legislative body).

The Constitution later authorizes the General Assembly to provide for consolidation of local governments (see Tennessee Constitution, Article XI Section 9.) The General Assembly has done this, and these provisions can be found in TCA Title 7 Sections 7-1-101 et. seq.

A question arises regarding the offices listed above as required by the Tennessee Constitution. Specifically, does a consolidated government have to have these offices? This question has been answered on at least four separate occasions by the Attorney General’s office, and the answer is “yes”. These opinions are attached as an Appendix to this report. However, it should be noted that in the Tennessee Constitution, Article VII Section 1. it is stated, “The General Assembly may provide alternate forms of county government …..” Some believe that this provision would not appear in the Constitution unless it was meant to provide the General Assembly with the option of establishing a form of county government which does not include the “constitutional offices” listed above. This opinion is in contrast to the opinions presented by the Attorney General’s office, but is noteworthy because there exists a possibility that the final answer would be provided by the courts, if a consolidation effort was attempted which excluded some or all of these offices. But it may also be possible for a consolidated government to later amend their charter to exclude one or more of these offices if deemed appropriate at that time.

A significant point regarding a consolidated structure should here be made. Of the 7 “constitutional offices” listed above (including the Circuit Court Clerk and Clerk and Master), only one of these provides a service which is duplicated by most existing city governments. That of course is the Sheriff’s office. Thus, the “hybrid” form created by a consolidation may not be as disruptive to the existing structure most comfortable to city officials. In fact, a consolidated government could be established which utilizes an appointed executive responsible for the day to day administration of the jurisdiction’s affairs. Those offices which would not come under this “council-manager” type structure would continue to function as they do under the existing county government arrangement. The only exception to this is again the Sheriff’s office. However, the duties of this office could be somewhat altered (for example, in the consolidated jurisdiction of Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County the Sheriff operates the jail while an appointed professional administers the police department).

However, it should also be noted that although many of the “required” offices do not provide services which duplicate those of most cities, one cannot assume that such services should be provided by the establishment and coordination of offices such as those which are “required”. In other words, there may be better, more efficient, or more responsive alternatives to providing these services, but existing constitutional requirements prevent consideration of such.

It should also be pointed out that a consolidated jurisdiction’s charter may require continuation of certain county offices (although this is a choice for the Charter Commission). For example, the Hartsville/Trousdale County metropolitan government chose to retain the Superintendent of Highways position, which is now responsible for duties of the previous city Street Superintendent. In addition they have chosen to continue the office of Sheriff, now responsible for the duties of the former city Chief of Police. The County Executive office also remains, and is responsible for all municipal administrative duties, prerogatives, and services previously provided by the County Executive and city Mayor.

2. Distribution and Control of Resources: Cities are partially funded through per capita state-shared revenues. For most cities, this is the largest revenue source. Other city revenues are from sales and property taxes. Under a consolidated government the new entity is divided into an “urban services district” (formerly the “city”) and a “general services district” (formerly the “county”). Even though city residents still generate sales taxes and state-shared per capita revenues, these revenues are spent by a newly formed governing body. Thus, “urban services” (city) residents may lose some control over where and how their dollars are spent. They may instead be spent in the “general services” district (formerly the county).

The opposite may also be true, and accounts for much of the opposition to consolidation from suburban residents when faced with becoming part of a large inner city jurisdiction. In this case such residents are concerned about the higher taxes and diminished political clout associated with becoming part of a larger jurisdiction.

3. Level of Service/Reduction of Service Considerations: As mentioned earlier, a large governing body with a number of members elected from the county (or “general services” district) will decide what services will be provided and at what level. Thus, city residents who are accustomed to and demand a given level of service may be unable to guarantee that their service demands are met.

Under a consolidated government it is also possible that city residents may experience a reduction in service and/or a resulting increase in costs. For example, resources which go to support the lower “fire rating” of most cities (when compared to counties) may be spent in the “general services” district in an effort to improve their rating. The resulting move of expenditures over time may mean that “city” residents receive a lower level of service or a level of service which does not improve over time, but remains constant. This is because the tendency may be to provide equivalent services through most of the consolidated jurisdiction, resulting in a diminution of service in the urban services district and an increased level of services in the general services district. Therefore this component can be viewed as a “positive” for county residents and a “negative” for city residents.

4. Citizen Satisfaction With Services: Research has been conducted to determine if citizens in consolidated jurisdictions are more satisfied with services than are citizens in similar non-consolidated jurisdictions. The results of these tests are mixed. Most show that for certain services citizens are equally satisfied. But for many more services they are more satisfied in non-consolidated jurisdictions than under a consolidated arrangement.

5. Decision-Making Difficulties: Generally, the governing bodies of consolidated jurisdictions are quite large. For example, the board of Nashville/Davidson County contains 42 members, the Lynchburg/Moore County board has 15 members and the Hartsville/Trousdale County board has 14 members. Needless to say, decision-making under this arrangement can be difficult at best. These problems are exacerbated by the decentralized and dispersed authority of the additional “constitutional” offices.

6. Policy and Administration Demarcation: It is generally accepted that there are two levels of decision-making which must be undertaken in order for local governments to effectively deliver services. The first is “policy-making”, or the deciding of what will be done and at what level. The second is “administration”, or the actual doing or delivering of the service. Policy-making is best undertaken by elected representatives of the citizens in the form of a governing body. Administration is best undertaken by trained professionals, hired by the governing body based on their qualifications. Under a consolidated arrangement these levels of decision-making are blurred. This is because there is no separation of powers. The same persons elected to decide policy are the same persons who must administer the operations of the government.

Much of this could be overcome if significant alterations are made which serve to combine the best of both the city and county structures (as discussed above).

7. Loss of the Sense of Community: Needless to say, residents of both the county and participating cities may experience a loss in their sense of “community” when jurisdictions consolidate. In short, there will no longer be a City of XXXX or a XXXXX County.

References

William Lyons and John M. Scheb II. “Saying No One More Time: The Rejection of Consolidated Government in Knox County, Tennessee.” State and Local Government Review. Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring 1998), 94.