SAVE Commission's findings - La Follette School of Public Affairs ...

harder to cross psychological barriers that separate
rural and urban, city and suburb, school
and city hall. This is what taxpayers expect but
too seldom receive. Using the state’s broker
function, questions about service sharing, cost
sharing, growth sharing, joint planning and
regional cooperation can be addressed.
The private sector is an important partner
in community development, especially in
urban settings. The state has to decide where
to help out (such as in siting state facilities) and
where to back off. The “help out” question is
key when state jobs can go to cities and lagging
rural areas, especially now that technology gives
the state and its employees greater work flexibility.
Government success in reaching consensus
is linked to a state budget process that requires
an early, meaningful, consultative and
even partnership role among all levels and
branches of government. It is a collaboration
that sees problems, opportunities and infrastructure
as one. No turf. No distrust. No excuses
to avoid cooperation. That’s what taxpayers
expect (see Goal #20).
GRASS ROOTS AND FORMAL
STRUCTURES
Given neighborhood growth strategies, it
may be possible for state agencies to focus resources
from numerous functions such as
school rebuilding, small business assistance
(more and more in the home), Main Street programs,
outdoor recreation, public safety, housing,
community education and urban forestry.
Packaging might happen through an urban land
grant university function (see Goal #13). Research
tells us community infrastructure is connected
and government agencies should behave
that way.
Overall, local government needs attention
and modernization before it lurches into a crisis.
There is value in grass roots neighborhood
democracy, sometimes made easier by computer
networks (from the Information Utility). However,
many local units need to ask whether they
are too small, too remote, or too poor to provide
their own service or pay for independent
overhead. Is the role of government to “do”
things, or is it to help things get done?
Should local government continue to fill
technical or professional offices through general
elections? Are various boards and councils
too big to be effective? Do we have too many
governmental units? These and other issues
should be debated in a local government statutory
revision commission, concluding its work
by 1998, Wisconsin’s sesquicentennial year.
This Commission recalls the themes of the
1977 commission on state-local relations and
financing policy. Giving local government
greater flexibility and autonomy still makes
sense, as does the still-unheeded plea to put
some sense into land use and boundary adjustment
policies. However, a key difference between
then and now is today’s recognition of
the many stifling layers of government and the
realization that government should not be the
sole provider of public service. The system looks
more like a web than a layer cake and the web
spinners include citizens, not-for-profits, business
and government. This is especially true at
the local level. The challenge (as envisioned in
Goal #22) is to have a management system that
strengthens the individual strands of that web
and supports the structure as a whole.
Actions
5.1
Create tension and
incentives to encourage
intergovernmental
cooperation.
5.2
Identify an intergovernmental
efficiency broker
function.
5.3
Pay once for local
government service.
5.4
Focus multiple
programs on rebuilding
communities.
5.5
Review the fit between
local government and
new century needs.
E. G. Nadeau,
consultant, Madison
“Local governments
should be cooperative
partners not competitors
for scarce
resources.”
Reuben Harpole,
Milwaukee
“Parks are important
places where we can
gather as a community.”
R E S U L T S
Cooperating communities
will:
1 Require local governments to
focus on service delivery at the
lowest possible cost and not
preservation of jurisdictional
boundaries.
2 Reduce the number of local
units of government whose
existence is based on tradition
rather than function and
efficiency.
3 Allow local taxpayer tax relief to
be based on local as well as
state level savings in the cost of
government.
4 Increase the equality of what
citizens pay for and get by
reducing the parochialism of
local units of government.
5 Change product focus of local
government from what it can
provide to its citizens to what is
the most effective way citizens
can get this service.
6 Reduce the cost of local
services by lessening
duplication and inefficiencies of
small scale operations.
7 Change the process of local
government from turf protection
to management of local
resources and tax dollars.
CITIZEN • COMMUNITY • GOVERNMENT — WISCONSIN: THE 21 ST CENTURY 21