COMMENTARY ON O.C. GOVERNMENT : Reforms Should be Guided by Public Service, Not Private Profit : Make government understandable and effective, rather than simply reducing the number of agencies.

There are nearly 7,000 public agencies in California--state government, 58 counties, 470 cities, and thousands of school and special districts. Despite the apparently universal belief that government is failing us, there is talk of creating yet another county and yet another city from among the current structures in Orange County. Why?

The rationale for forming a new county raises questions that even the proponents admit are formidable. However, the underlying motives have much in common with those of the residents considering incorporation of the county’s 32nd city. They share anger at the perception that existing institutions respond to special interests that do not share the residents’ long-term commitment to their community. They want a local government structure that is approachable and understandable. They want public policy decisions made by people who will have to live with them, not under the auspices of “district prerogative.” They want the very same thing that caused people in five other Orange County communities to incorporate as independent cities just in the past five years.

Residents resort to what appears to be the only course of action available, creating a new entity that will represent them. The overwhelming response to feelings of disenfranchisement is the creation of smaller, more responsive units of government. Rarely is the focus on the elimination of agencies or the diminution of powers or services.

Should there be even one County of Orange, much less two? Dennis Aigner, dean of the UCI Graduate School of Management, has often expressed his viewpoint that county governments in urban areas are obsolete organizations. Certainly the county has a role to play in delivering traditional services, such as courts, social services and the registrar of voters. Other municipal services, such as land use planning, can be transferred to cities and make the focus local, based on communities of interest.

Are there too many cities? Arguments about government based strictly on economics depersonalize the concept of public service. What can be done is to offset any “diseconomies” with continued development of cooperative efforts, such as the recently established fire service joint powers authority, cooperation on road construction, urban planning, public safety communication and hazardous materials response.

No one will deny cities and counties can continue to improve service delivery by having some functions perform more like private enterprise. However, government cannot be run exactly like a business. The motive is public service, not private profit. Effectiveness in public service is as much a political concept or perception as it is a measurement of the bottom line results of a program.

The emphasis should be on efficiency and effectiveness, not just reducing the number of agencies. It is important we acknowledge the diversity that has existed in this county since the formation of the ranchos and provide for alternative solutions. Communities that succeed use all community resources. Many Orange County cities have established nonprofit foundations or relied on volunteer labor to maintain service levels.

This is in no way intended to suggest that the answer to all our problems is to form more cities or to do away with the county. The answer is that the solutions will be easier to derive than to implement. Reforming government has been the subject of a number of studies released by any number of prestigious and qualified organizations, yet meaningful action has eluded us. As a recently released League of California Cities discussion paper concludes: “Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.”

This discussion paper, “Making California Government Work,” also suggests fundamental principles of governmental reform and restructuring. The solutions must:

* Proactively and productively engage the public.

* Reduce the amount of government.

* Realign service delivery along rational lines.

* Promote accountability and responsibility of government.

* Work within available resources.

* Provide incentives for balanced development.

* Modify the revenue structure to reflect changes in the state’s economy.

* Strive for understandability.

Any proposed solutions must be as close to “right” as possible and include the power of common sense and logic behind them. They must be understandable both by the segment of society that will be directly affected and by the public at large. They must rise to a level of importance that demands constructive action. Finally, solutions must be dealt with as a composite, to avoid being chipped away by special interests seeking special consideration.

Community leaders need to rewrite their definition of community. They must prepare to take major risks in changing the status quo for the betterment of the community at large. At the same time, they must project an image of government that works for people and is organized in a logical, understandable way. Cities have already begun this journey and invite the county and other local governments to join us.

The fiscal situation in Orange County has handed us an unprecedented opportunity to make a lasting impact on the way we manage our affairs. We can also be viewed as nationally significant leaders, if we are courageous enough to venture into uncharted territory. The problems are clear. The options are developed. The timing is perfect. What are we waiting for?