From Dr. J. Martin Rochester (Clayton)Last night at the Joint Study Committee meeting, I and others heard from an expert on urban planning. Please allow me to make some observations here as a professional political scientist. As a Clayton citizen, and also a political scientist, listening to the conversation Wednesday evening, I was struck by a basic political problem that the two mayors and other supporters of a Clayton-RH merger have.
On the one hand, if they do not assure municipal employees there will be no job loss from a prospective merger aimed at economizing, they risk political opposition within their own ranks in city government, which explains why "no job loss" was stated as a "guiding objective" last night. (I realize there is also the understandable humane concern about not firing people, but frankly, I think this is secondary to the concern about destroying muncipal employee morale and generating heated opposition to and undermining of the merger idea.)
Yet, on the other hand, if the mayors go to the voters with a merger proposal suggesting the HUGE savings a merger could offer -- which is the only thing that could possibly justify voters taking the EXCEPTIONAL step of fundamentally altering their comnunity -- and in the same breath tell voters there will be BUSINESS AS USUAL at city hall(s), i.e. NO JOB CUTS, then voters rightly will ask how is this possible and why should I do this? THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DISCONNECT BETWEEN, ON THE ONE HAND, THE EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS MADE FOR A MERGER PRODUCING WONDROUS ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND EFFICIENCIES AND TAX SAVINGS AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO IN THE WORK FORCE (WHICH SURELY MUST REPRESENT A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES).
There is a real credibility problem. I agree with Wendy Bell and others on the JSC, whose jaws dropped last night when they saw "no job loss" as a guiding principle. Humanitarian concerns aside -- and I have as high regard for our Clayton employees as anyone and wish them no harm -- this defies all logic and reason, no? The mayors simply cannot have it both ways.
Bottom line: If they don't want to fire anyone, then they have no business pushing for a merger.That's a nonstarter.
A merger would be a tough enough sell to voters even with the promise of workforce reduction that would realize immediate savings; announcing in advance that there will be no such savings -- i.e., at best, there will be minimal savings -- it will be all the more difficult to get voters to buy into the EXTRAORDINARY act of destroying their muncipalities; As a voter, frankly I would be nuts to give up Clayton's autonomy and close sense of community and other benefits for the faint hope sometime down the road ("10 years"?) of marginal cost savings.
Btw, i would like to express appreciation to Gary Feder and Jill Belsky of the JSC for pointing out last night the lack of any "balance" in the Guiding Objectives statement, in that there was not even the slightest hint of any disadvantages and adverse consequences possibly flowing from a potential merger or service consoldiation. I credit Mayor Uchitelle for using the word "disadvantages" almost every time he uttered the word "advantages" but we need to see the documents reflect this as well. --Marty Rochester
