Lucas County government reform: Don't talk - act

THE campaign to reform Lucas County government is attracting a coalition of the like-minded. Unfortunately, it's a collection of individuals and interest groups determined to resist change.

Meanwhile, too many of the groups and leaders who might be expected to embrace reform - or at least have been known to complain about the status quo - continue to sit on their hands. They need to get in the game.

Leading the challenge to the proposal to replace the county's obsolete Board of Commissioners and obscure row offices with an elected county executive and legislative council are, not surprisingly, nearly all the holders of these offices. Since they all are Democrats, the local party apparatus opposes reform as well.

Democratic County Commissioner Ben Konop, the author of the reform plan, is not seeking re-election this year. At best, other incumbents say they favor "studying" a new county charter - for a nice long time.

Joining incumbents in opposition are unions that represent county employees. They find a threat to democracy in the proposal to replace elected politicians in top county administrative jobs with experienced professionals appointed by the executive.

Their critique ignores the fact that under the plan, the elected council would have the power to confirm or reject executive appointees. And because council members would be elected by district, they would be more accessible to voters than officials who now are elected countywide. The unions' stronger, if unsubstantiated, objection to reform is that it would jeopardize current contracts.

To get the reform plan on the November ballot, Mr. Konop and other advocates must submit more than 14,000 petition signatures from county voters by late July. Probably many more, since opponents can be expected to flyspeck every signature for potential challenges.

So far, county Republican Party Chairman Jon Stainbrook has enlisted in the reform cause, seeing an opportunity to break Democrats' stranglehold on county offices. But few independent-minded Democrats have stepped forward to advocate a vote this year on the plan. An exception to the Democratic lockstep is Sylvania Township Trustee Carol Contrada, her party's nominee in November to succeed Mr. Konop on the county commission. She says a November vote is "absolutely" possible.

No major business executives or groups have endorsed the reform plan, even though it emphasizes making county government both a more efficient public entity and a more effective tool of local economic development and job creation. Mr. Konop hints that some prominent business leaders are joining the campaign. But others continue to hide behind the "study" dodge - a prescription for doing nothing.

Nor have civic and civil-rights groups and academic and professional organizations found their voices on the reform issue, although even opponents of a vote this year agree that such institutions must be an integral part of the community debate.

A report in Sunday's Blade reviews the experience of Allegheny County, Pa., including Pittsburgh, which switched to an executive-council county government from a commission system a decade ago. Officials there say the format has enhanced county government's checks and balances and capacity for economic development, and improved the diversity and public accessibility of that government.

Closer to home, voters in Cuyahoga County have approved an executive form of government that takes effect next year. Reform in Lucas County need not and should not parrot every element of Cuyahoga's plan.

But there still is ample time to develop and debate a reform charter that takes our county's unique circumstances into account. Where Cuyahoga's plan is most useful as a model is in the determination of its citizens to achieve needed change, rather than talk it to death. Their counterparts in Lucas County need to show similar resolve, now.