Don't run from reform

THE campaign to start to change Lucas County's archaic form of government this November has just begun. Yet already it is attracting opposition from the entrenched political interests that benefit handsomely from the status quo, at the expense of the county's taxpayers and prospects for economic development and job creation.

If the reform effort is to succeed, it will need an equally determined coalition of interests working together for meaningful change. Should county voters perceive reform as nothing more than a power grab by business lobbies or suburbanites or Republicans - and that is how its enemies will portray it - it will surely fail.

If, however, these groups are joined by local civic and academic leaders who want a more-efficient county government, Toledoans who seek a more-diverse government, and independent Democrats who place community interests ahead of partisan ones, reform just might have a fighting chance.

Time is of the essence. If proponents of county reform don't submit enough valid petition signatures by mid to late July to get the issue on the Nov. 2 ballot, it's dead for this year - and quite possibly for good.

This week, The Blade reported on San Francisco's consolidated city-county government. Unique among California's counties, San Francisco has an elected chief executive and a legislative council elected by district. All other counties in the state have boards of supervisors that exercise both executive and legislative powers, like the Lucas County Commission.

San Franciscans argue persuasively that their local government promotes more progressive policy making on economic and social issues such as health care and homelessness, and more efficient administration and budget making. They cite more checks and balances among the branches of government, more responsive and transparent representation, greater public accountability and access, cost savings, and a better credit rating.

Most of all, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, and other advocates say the government structure encourages collaboration among diverse interests. As a speaker at a public hearing puckishly observed: "We shouldn't be pitting the trannies against the grannies."

That precise conflict might not be a major issue in Lucas County. And San Francisco's government has more advantages and faces more challenges than county government here because it also oversees city functions.

Still, proposed home-rule charter reform here would create a county government similar to San Francisco's - an elected executive, a council whose members are elected by district rather than at large, the elimination of obscure and redundant elected row offices, and new power for voters to recall elected county officials. It could deliver many of the same benefits.

In Ohio, Cuyahoga County is using government reform as an engine of economic development, promising specific programs to promote business growth and new jobs. That pledge, along with disdain for the county's corrupt political culture, made business leaders there enthusiastic proponents of change.

The reform effort in Lucas County, patterned on Cuyahoga County's new charter, will need similar business support. So far, though, many executives here are refusing to commit to reform, taking a wait-and-see, someone-else-go-first stance instead of displaying leadership.

Such temporizing will kill the impetus for reform as surely as the proposal for a commission to "study" changes in county government, which is primarily a stalling tactic devoted to incumbent protection.

The window of opportunity for reform is open in Lucas County, but it won't stay that way indefinitely. Those who want needed change will work for it, not merely complain about the status quo. Those who don't want change are likely to discover, sooner rather than later, that they can't hide that fact from taxpayers or from people who need jobs.