Editorial

What’s the answer to whether we have too big or too small a
government? Have we cut too many programs during these challenging
economic times, or do we need to keep freezing spending, public
employment and new taxes?
We seem to be facing the same challenge as Goldilocks in The
Three Bears; how do we find a government that is “just right?”
Away from all the idealogical debates of big, small and limited
government, the answer to “just right” these days is not how big or
limited but what we can afford. More than size, we need governments
that perform and produce the results we, as taxpayers and voters,
demand and require. We should not be chop, chop, chopping. We
should be think, think, thinking.
Our local government leaders need to launch more strategic
planning and long-term budgeting. More collaboration, shared
services and new citizen advisory panels should be instituted. Our
governments’ budget woes are not part of a bad economic cycle; we
are facing permanent changes. We need innovative solutions,
sustainable programs and some wholesale reinventions of all our
governments.
The continuing fiscal impacts of the recent Great Recession are
forcing us to tear our local, school and county governments apart
from the inside out. We’ve cut thousands of local government jobs,
frozen salaries and furloughed many public jobs. We’ve cut school
programs to the bone and we still need to cut $42.3 million from
this year’s county government budget. Without our annual parcel
taxes at local school, fire and parks districts, we’d be
considering wholesale bankruptcy for some government agencies.
Size is not the only thing that matters. Shape and structure
matter, too. In the current set of local government fiscal crises,
we should be doing more to reexamine, reinvent and re-direct our
many local agencies, public services and large employee bases.
We have 40 separate school districts in Sonoma County. Is that
too many? How much duplication of government does this represent?
Each of the county’s nine incorporated cities has its own street
repair crew, human resources and fiscal experts, department
managers and public safety agencies. Can’t any of these taxpayer
services be shared? At each city and school district there are
numerous public employee bargaining units, each with separate
employment contracts and retirement plans. The county’s Board of
Supervisors each year must bargain with no less than 13 different
public employee unions. Does that sound like efficient or “just
right” government to you?
All of these government agencies hold millions in long-term
debts and bond issues. Could a consortium of Sonoma County
governments re-finance their debts and take advantage of today’s
record low interest rates and save some real money?
We are not blindly advocating for a wholesale consolidation of
local school districts, police units or collapsing government
agencies. We desire as much local control of government as fiscally
and physically possible. But, local or otherwise, all government
must be flexible to changing needs, always be held accountable and
operate in full transparency.
Governments, like the rest of us, must live within their means.
But simply making a 25 percent “across the board” expense cut is
not being flexible to changing needs. It’s like tearing down the
garage or back deck from last year’s house to save on the
mortgage.
Relying on only government department heads to propose their own
internal expense cuts and program freezes is neither good
accountability practices or a smart business plan.
When local taxpayers do not know how much is owed (and unfunded)
to public employee pension plans we lack transparency.
Getting more facts on the table about all our various local
governments — and getting more people around the table — might
prove to be a forum for re-shaping some of our local government
structure and purposes. We might even find out we can afford more
government services and less hurtful cuts than we now believe.
Like Goldilocks, we need to try as many options as possible.
— Rollie Atkinson