The New London DAY has an interesting Front Page Article on Regionalization http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=90711a54-f13b-45f9-9e93-ad012035bc95 from the point of view of some local First Selectmen. The DAY Editorial Staff also makes it their number one goal for 2009 http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=c106921e-3778-44a4-b6a2-0679e61824b2 .
How do we make regionalization work without reviving County Government? Are local sports enthusiastics willing to give up their high school athletic history to merge with a neighboring high school? Will local Volunteer Fire Departments be willing to merge to take advantage of economies of scale in purchase of apparatus, support equipment, and training? Should the various town 911 centers be combined into regional 911 centers? Are towns willing to share the costs and benefits of a new large development?
The 169 independent fiefdoms in CT are really creatures of the State Legislature and if the governor and the legislature so desired, they could force regionalization on towns and cities whether the local leaders wanted it or not. In New England we pride ourselves on local control and neighbor working with neighbor to solve local problems, from snow plowing to education to public safety. Unfortunately, the solutions are getting too expensive for local pocketbooks so some solution needs to be found.
Any ideas on how to start to work on this issue?
20 responses so far ↓
I spoke with someone from CCM on Friday. I asked what savings would be found by increasing regionalization.
About the only answer that resonated with me was reduced legal fees for collective bargaining.
I believe most of the talk about regionalization ignores the reality that there are a number of group efforts in CT that already provide for economies of scale, such as library consortia, public safety operational support agreements and various state agencies (most notably DAS) which allow towns to piggyback on their contracts.
I’ll listen, but my expectation is that the “cost savings” goal of regionalization will be small… at least from my perspective in Cheshire.
As for the legislature taking action in this regard, I suspect that vote would become an election issue… with more than a few people annoyed. So I doubt anything significant will happen there.
I don’t expect any immediate savings but I believe that regionalization hods promise of future savings. Perhaps a better example to examine the potential of savings is municipal Health Departments. They are all governed by State Statute and have the same reporting requirements dictated by the State Department of Health. We should perhaps try this function as a “proof of concept” before we try to touch the hot button issue of public school districts.
Does anyone else think 169 superintendents may be a bit excessive?
maybe , maybe not, but definitely all the assistant superintendents and their secretaries are.
Don’t disagree. But?
Suppose you combine 6 departments into one. Who becomes the director? What happens to the other directors? What about the clericals? Lots of turf to fight over.
I understand that there are regional health districts among small towns already, water authorities and some school districts.
I can not see that combining nearby large and small places would help as the needs are very different. Urban and rural government to not have a high degree of overlap.
If you create a new structure a level above local government it will most likely be more expensive. What happens to town charters?
The Regional Education Service Centers (RESCs) do operate on a mulit-disrict level. LEARN ah 24 towns and provides special education, trainings for district staff and monthly meetings to share info among boards of education and also superintendents. They develop multi-town buying power and some transportation. The town govts. could use the centers across the state to expand info and services provided without needed new buildings an a total structure if employees.
A look at possibilites from regional serice centers may be a way to get soem multi-town cooperative ideas going among towns wehre part of the towns are using them already.
Remember, just because you make the pool larger (as with insurance) does not mean the cost will go down.
Will adding another layer to government bureaucracy make it more efficient and less costly?
I do. I think there’s a possibility of significant savings in regionalizing smaller school districts.
Cheshire belongs to ChesProCott – the health district of Cheshire, Prospect and Wolcott.
And while I understand the point about 169 Sptd’s, CT already has 15 to 20 regional school districts. And at least until recently, I think some towns were not included in any districts. Rather they decided annually on where to send the kids to school… I could be wrong on that point though.
Many opportunities are already available.
Here’s one:
First, The state needs to solve the Probate court issue. We have way to many. They should just consolidate them like the civil and criminal courts. 13 judicial districts. not over 100
What is the probate court issue?
Now the probate situation is about self paying.
Why do we need to complicate the organization?
We don’t want to create another bureaucracy that costs us money and adds layers of government employees.
The criminal and civil courts are so crowded that they are making smaller courts for family and juvenile work. They are just opening these (a few to be expanded as in New London) in the last couple of years. That system doe not need to be clogged with estate work.
so you’re fine with probate cases taking years to adjudicate even the uncontested cases.
okay your right
in family court anyone can get an uncontested divorce in around 90 days, I guess that is clogged…..
My understanding is that CTs probate courts go far beyond probate now because the other courts are bogged down.
For instance, if grandparents think that parents are abusing drugs and the kids are getting abused as a result… probate routinely steps in. And having the local probate judges expedites house visits.
I have no idea if this should be DCF… or if DCF is involved… I just know that such stories are out there.
But can anyone speak to this with some sort of knowledge / authority?
Mandate it? Sounds like good governemnt it me. Forcing the populace to do things whether they want it or not? How about listening to to the people before forcing anything on anyone. Yikes! That comment is stunning. Politicians are there as public servants, PUBLIC servants, as our representatives. They have not been ordained to run our lives and tell us how to live.
If regionalization is so positive, towns are going to do it on their own. You know, all that free market of ideas stuff. For instance, maybe some smaller towns will choose to combine their schools. Oh, wait, some have already done this. Maybe we can have some regional health districts. Oh, wait, we already have some of these.
The people of CT, and the people who volunteer their time as town leaders are not stupid, despite what the almighty politicians in Hartford may believe. If there are towns that want to take advantage of the benefits of regionalization and think they offset the downsides, they will figure that out and find other towns willing to do the same thing.
I suspect some towns/cities would love to be part of regionalization, like our fair cities, but they have nothing to offer the region, so no one wants to partner with them. They simply want to mooch off the small towns that make their own system work within their own budgets. Moreover, this is another way for state politicians to grab more power. You can be sure that if the State mandates regionalization, the State will control an awful lot of what the regional governments can do, how they do it, and how to pay for it.
We should keep in mind that your local property taxes are NOT going to go down even with the establishment of another layer of government. Proponents of regionalization do not disagree that regional governments will just be another taxing authority between towns and the State (not to mention the federal government).
How does creating another level of government, that gets it funding from the same taxpayers, make economic sense? It doesn’t. Economies of scale will not cover the vast overhead needed for running another government. And, since the eceonomies can be achieved in other ways, we don’t need more government mandates. Come on, people. We can be smart and creative about this and other issues without being told what to do by state politicians.
On the issue of education, if CT has the best education of any state in the country, why would we want to copy what other states do? Talk about lowering your own standards. We should be proud of our systems and encourage other states to follow ours. Not the other way around.
No doubt, there are benefits of regionalization, but many of the states that have county governments do not have town governments who assess local property values. Just be aware of what you are wishing for.
As for me, I will continue to believe that more government means less freedom and liberty.
… ahh, the big government strawman.
That’s quite a screed or tome … or something! I think I heard someone humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic by the time I got to the end, anyone else hear it?
In short, 0ne side doesn’t want an additional layer of government and the other doesn’t want redundant government. These positions are remarkably the same. Certainly there are opportunities for towns to find economies of scale, reduce redundant services, and even enhance and market good services to neighboring towns. Right now we generally have decent services but very high costs — collaboration across towns can address these costs while maintaining quality.
Anyway, pitting “state” politicians against your local elected burgesses, councilors, and others conveniently neglects the fact that this is a representative Democracy. Criminy, it’s your local townspeople who elect their neighbors to serve in the legislature! And, it is more likely that local leaders will vote to keep their redundant power rather than do what may be best for the community — your argument goes both ways and is stronger in support of legislative prerogative.
Occasionally the legislature has to have the greater good as a goal and check the counter-productive power of local inertia.
There is no strawman as you suggest. As a matter of fact, big government is not efficient and does not do anything well except seek to consolidate more power for itself at the expense of individual choices, feedoms and liberties.
While you may believe the government’s function is to protect “the common good,” that sounds a bit too much like a marxist-inspired strawman to me. Obviously, we have fundamental different view on what government should be. You can strive for “the collective good” by putting faith in a government entity, which has never worked in the history of man. (Does anyone hear the definition of insanity in the background?)
But, for me, I will take the freedoms and responsibilities that come with limited government. With a smaller federal and state government and more concentration of power at the local level gives each one of use more of a say in matters that effect our everyday lives. And, we also have to remember that it is our duty to help our neighbor, which we can do more efficiently at the local level without giving up our liberties.
By the way, interesting that you did not even try to refute that regionalization is just another way to extract additional taxes from the same taxpayers that currently pay local, state and federal taxes.
If we go for a larger group collective (more area and population together using tax money) we will have more money to spread? for what?
- that seems to be what I am hearing.
It means those who make the money have to allow it to be spread across their needs and include others making less or no contribution.
If small towns band together for useful cooperation, and they have done it, wonderful.
If ideas for a few more areas of savings is shared by nearby cooperation, wonderful.
If the legislature makes new rules that we must cooperate with certain towns, this will not help us save money.
So far they have eliminated the statute blocks to non-local bidding. That should help us on reverse auctions. Only one town is taking advantage of that so far. Getting together to purchsae would be a great sue of cooperation.
Let’s look for more.
Previously, I was asking, “What is the issue with the probate court?” as a serious question. I am not connected to that area and have not used it in 7-8 years.
You must log in to post a comment.