Two fundamental changes in governance will accelerate dramatically in the next 5-10 years:
• A reconstruction of the federal government's role, structure and scope providing greater accountability to the American public leading to dramatic changes in Washington's relationship with local governments and communities.
• A fundamental restructuring and consolidation of local government entities to reduce the myriad of costly and redundant Jurisdictions that frustrate the public and show marginal effectiveness in dealing with growingly complex and regionalized issues affecting "quality of life." Both transformations are vital to America's future and any hope that might remain in restoring the public's confidence in government as an institution responsive to its concerns and hopes. The more important transformation - the one most directly affecting the future of our regions, cities, neighborhoods and daily existence is the latter - restructuring of local government.

Throughout the nation, people are buried in multiple layers of balkanized local government units - costly enterprises, myopic in focus, and mostly incapable of dealing with the substantive and systemic issues that shape and define all the elements that we call community: education, transit, interactive land use, jobs and commerce, crime, neighborhood safety, clean air and water, and economic vibrance. The current pattern of increased local government entities was shaped mainly by the fragmentation of Americans into bedroom-bergs through post-WWII suburbanization. There was no rational planning process, just migration from big cities.

Local government is on the brink of a major paradigm shift that will be characterized by major changes in its structure and scope for three reasons:
• the public has caught on - local governments are shown as wanting when confronted with major regionalized issues affecting multiple jurisdictions.
• citizens are confused and frustrated over "who is accountable for what." California, for example has nearly 4000 local government entities: cities, counties, townships, school districts and special districts. The Denver Metropolitan area (roughly 2.5 million people) has over 800 local government entities. Both are typical of "local government" in America.
• the federal government will turn more and more accountability for major social and infrastructure programs over to local governments which currently are not constituted to accept and administer these responsibilities from a regional or multiple jurisdictional perspective.

The simple truth: the daily lives of citizens have regionalized forming whole new communities determined by patterns of transit, commerce, and social interaction all of which now transcend local jurisdictional boundaries and missions. Yet, these local government jurisdictions persevere in their fragmentation and separate (disparate) responsibilities - not accountable for or able to address decisively regional or communitywide needs. Local governments need to redefine themselves as basic governance, policy making, and service delivery institutions aligned to the needs of these communities and regions, now the "real world" of their constituents' daily personal and professional existence.

The plethora of civic renewal, community visioning, smart-growth citizen summits, and "town meeting" forums abounding throughout the nation reflects 3 harbingers of the coming paradigm shift:
• a desire for a sense of community in addressing issues that shape an area's future and desired quality of life - i.e., broader, more global, perspectives for rational and responsible local decision-making.
• a yearning for participatory "town meeting" democracy where citizens feel their voices are heard and heeded. Currently, most Americans feel disenfranchised by governance mechanisms they perceive to be fragmented, impervious to public sentiment but porous to special interests.
• Americans, in numerous polls, intrinsically believe the "government closest to home" potentially best understands, represents, and serves them. But when the federal government proposes decentralization of the Washington-based programs through block grants, etc., the public evidences distrust in the ability of local governments' (as currently constituted or allied) to administer these programs effectively and equitably. City officials, for example, react with statements such as: "The State legislature will get control of the money and we don't trust them to do the 'right thing'."

As these new mechanisms of local government emerge, they must:
• reduce the inefficiencies, duplication, and impotence of fragmented and disparate local governments. This particularly is true, if communities are to shape and direct their futures in a coordinated manner. Most of the visioning and smart growth forums abounding throughout the nation use consensual decision making to involve people, identify problems/issues, and propose courses of action. Nearly all have robust starts

March 1996 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 13

and impotent finishes because consensual good intentions are mauled and ultimately muted by the myriad of local government jurisdictions with limited missions, separate budgets, and parochial priorities. Strategies and ideas falter for lack of appropriate institutions capable of ensuring, and being accountable for, their implementation.
• increase the local community's capacity to administer programs given back to them by the decentralization of Washington without surrending their control to state government by default.
• align the scope and mechanisms of local decision-making and implementation to the magnitude of the issues and problems affecting the future of the community or region, however defined. Systemic communitywide/regional issues seldom yield to fragmented competing micro-interests.

The public sector needs to heed the lessons of "new" global economic realities painfully experienced by the private sector. Survival and competitive performance require new structures and strategies, frequently achieved through mergers, resizing, and forming wholly new entities capable of mastering the challenges and issues essential to their success and retention of their customers. Local governments fulfill potential ego needs, but they progressively are proving inadequate to addressing many issues really shaping the destiny of an entire community, area or region.

In Colorado, the author's home state, runaway uncoordinated growth has led to yet another quest for "smart growth and development." All recommended "action items" beg a fundamental issue - the need for new mechanisms for local/regional planning, decision making, land and water use controls, and pinpointed accountability for growth management and the consequences of that management (or the lack of it). Much of the "action" falls to the state by default to establish new legislation enabling better "local control and accountability" for growth. Paradoxically, it is recognized also that the state shouldn't assume control of growth because the various local regions (communities made up of currently fragmented jurisdictions) are too unique to be subject to a state-directed "homogeneous" approach. Again, strategy begs for structure essential to its success.

California may be the bellwether for the new paradigm redefining local government. California boldly is addressing the need for radical reform of local government. Making California's Governments Work is an unprecedented proposal calling for major revisions to the State's constitution and the eventual numerical reduction of local governments that "are not serving the public as effectively as they could be." This dramatic effort is in response to two things:
• the public's frustration with the "helter skelter" growth of government and the number of government entities without any gains in efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with issues of real importance to the futures of local communities.
• existing governmental entities have little incentive to change their modus operandi regardless of the public's desires or frustrations.

The emerging opinion of responsible public and private leaders throughout the State, including the League of California Cities, is a "fundamental reorganization of state and local government responsibilities is required." California's effort is an aggressive proposal for the restructuring of local government through constitutional revisions. It changes the state-local government relationship, reorders how local governments serve the public, and allows the creation of "new" local government structures. It both reduces the number of smaller overlapping jurisdictions and realigns service delivery on a more rational community-wide/regional basis where appropriate.

California's undertaking is fraught with the potential for failure from interests more desirous of status quo and turf preservation than stewardship and long-term reform that benefits the people. The advocates of this proposal for Making California's Governments Work, while courageous, are not naive. They know the challenges and resistance they will face. They also know that the public and times demand change which if not responsibly achieved can accelerate the public's disdain for government and the potential for revolution through radical initiatives and political agendas. If successful, the California "solution" could well sweep the nation as the force for local government restructuring dovetail, with the federal government's realignment to "return powder to local government,"

Other "restructuring" models emerge - Portland's Metropolitan Service District, metro counties, etc. All fall short of meaningful "new paradigm" stewardship which, in the final analysis, must lead to:
• Better Governance that expands citizen involve-

Page 14 / Illinois Municipal Review / March 1996

ment and representation in regional, community and local decision making - decisions that respond to new issues and problems - i.e. decisions that get the job done - not just "nibble" at it.
• Better Communities that define and act upon "common" interests from a global (community and regional) perspective ensuring that the conditions, functions and services essential to the community's well being and quality of life are dealt with effectively, efficiently, and comprehensively.
• Better Outcomes and Accountability that ensure quality growth and development, the provision of critical services and the resolution of vital issues such as land use, water, transit, health care, environment, waste management, education, social services, and public safety. Specific "single point" accountability should exist for planning, service delivery, and program implementation.
• Being able to "Partner" with the Federal and State government - so that local governments are no longer viewed as "subordinate" jurisdictions incapable of governing, implementing, and managing major service delivery systems and social programs of importance to their constituents' needs. For too long, local government fragmentation and parochialism have abetted the federal and state governments' "big brother" egocentric-city that emerged from the Roosevelt New Deal and still is championed by many in the Administration and a dwindling minority in Congress. As Thomas Jefferson noted, freedom is a consequence of self government - engaging in the affairs of a community controlling its own fate.

America's inclination is to decentralize big government and reinvigorate our historical faith in our ability to govern ourselves on all issues - big and small - to the fullest extent possible at the local level. But post-industrial suburbanized America is no longer simple and independent. Our regions and communities, and the issues they face affecting our quality of life, are complex, interdependent and transcendent of the confusing array of overlapping, conflicting, and single-dimensional local government entities. Our communities and regions must restructure to new plateaus of performance based upon innovation, collaboration, and pioneering new institutions for local governance, decision-making and service delivery. The private sector has learned this lesson in the global economy. Now, it is the public sector's turn to learn and adapt and to develop the concepts, competence, and connections (relationships, methods, and structures) to have "world class" local government capable of leading our communities and regions in a fast-paced globalized world.

As local government officials, elected 'and appointed, we have:
• an obligation to move beyond "consensual feel good" public forums for change and institute new mechanisms for governance, participation, and performance that will be accountable for and achieve the futures we desire for our communities.
• a call to leadership and stewardship to move beyond our charters, budgets and council agendas to new horizons that look at the entirety of governmental structure and decision making in the communities in which the public we serve lives, plays, works, and acts out its existence. We must ensure that our perspectives, thinking and accountability encompass the totality of the "community" and not just that little particular compass point which is parochially ours.
• a need to engage in forums and debates such as the one in California that can lead to real restructuring of local government so that it can effectively address "real" community-wide and regional issues and service demands. •

March 1996 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 15