Unclear Motivation For Merger Study

The Clayton Board of Aldermen and Richmond Heights City Council have not provided any cogent rationale of why the cities should even consider a measure so severe, costly, controversial, problematic, volatile, uncertain, and trail-blazing as a city merger. Their motivation can't be ascribed to the will of the people: Neither governing board could possibly be informed of what the masses think as there has been little dedicated public forum for citizens to share their opinions.

The merger study appears to be an exploration for a solution for which the problem will then be defined.

In helping the citizens understand where their City representatives are proposing to take them, it is essential the Cities first through disclosure and discussion:

1. Define the critical problems.
2. Trace the history of each problem.
3. Discuss what has been tried to remedy each problem.
4. Indicate why such remedies have failed.
5. Identify what other alternatives were considered and elaborate on why they were ruled out.
6. Explain why it is believed all viable options have been exhausted.

If the Cities want their citizens to maintain open minds, then their elected officials need to present more than just a vision. Beginning by leaping to a radical conclusion will unquestionably lead citizens to make such a shallow approach a sour memory.

Letter Regarding Merger Study Purpose and Process

Andrew B. Rochman
8051 Crescent Drive
Clayton, MO 63105
Email: arochman@att.net


June 21, 2005


Board of Aldermen By Email
City of Clayton
10 N. Bemiston Avenue
Clayton, MO 63105


RE: Joint Committee Study on Potential Merger of Cities of Clayton and Richmond Heights, Missouri



Dear Board:

My email to Aldermen Berger and Lictenfeld raised issues of employing consultants to facilitate the merger study to secure a fair and impartial study and to ensure that salient issues get addressed. This letter continues the commentary.

Background

My April 11, 2005 email to Aldermen Berger and Lictenfeld requested a copy of the Request For Proposal that the Cities would issue to solicit consultants. Mayor Uchitelle replied to this email in his April 13, 2005 email, “There is presently no plan to send out an RFP to solicit bids for conducting a merger/consolidation study.” This prompted my April 13, 2005 email response to the Mayor,

“A study of such magnitude and consequence that does not rely upon and involve outside expert facilitation would be founded on inadequately diverse background and experience in the city merger arena and therefore, would be susceptible to suffering from lack of objectivity and independence.

This is precisely what the opponents of the merger will be preaching. In short, it would behoove the Cities to get help so that the citizens will not a priori distrust a conclusion that merging (or not merging cities) is in the best interest of each population.

It's clear such help might cost 10 or more times than the $30,000-$50,000 figures tossed around in the newspapers, but we're talking about long-range, likely irreversible consequences that will greatly impact the citizens of Clayton, and possibly more so, the citizens of Richmond Heights. We need to spend the money to ensure the study is conducted in a manner that covers all the bases and withstands public scrutiny.”

On April 26, 2005 the Mayor commented by email as follows:

“I must respectfully disagree with your urging the JSC to hire an outside consultant, at a very expensive price, because the citizens on the committee might suffer "from a lack of objectivity and independence". To the contrary, having 20 citizens from each City, I think, will assure that all views will be heard and carefully considered. As I am sure you know, we have many talented residents, and I have confidence they will undertake their tasks in a fair and thorough manner.

My experience is that outside consultants frequently lack the thorough, on-the-ground knowledge that a study of this nature would require. That is not to say the JSC might utilize outside experts for specific areas. It may well do so. But we certainly don't need an expensive expert to tell us why a merger might be good or not good. That's for the JSC to study and recommend.”

Comments

Historically, Clayton has relied upon outside expertise. Most recently, the City brought in Amy Liu of Brookings Institution to inform the Citizens of Clayton of the history and literature on City Mergers and recently retained Clarion of Denver to assist with the development of Urban Design District standards for Clayton Road east of Big Bend. Thus, employing experts to advise in respect of a merger study would not establish a precedent.

Given that our Mayor has not stated that he has had any personal involvement in a merger between two cities, his assessment that that “outside consultants” [might] “lack the thorough, on-the-ground knowledge that a study of this nature would require” falls outside the classification of experienced-based, expert opinion. Further, arriving at this conclusion without as much as interviewing consultants who have expertise in the area is simply gut reaction without basis. While his opinions are respected and may very well be on target, they do not in themselves serve as evidence and argument that his conclusions are valid.

The Mayor speaks of “expensive price.” Put pen to paper and write down your definition of “expensive.” It’s possible no two definitions will agree and you will likely have difficulty applying your definition consistently in your personal expenditures. The City spent $7 million on City Hall renovation. How much Richmond Heights spent on their City Hall renovation is likely significant as well. Were these expenditures expensive? Especially if one of these must fall! The two Cities are about to embark upon a study of one of the most critical and possibly controversial issues in the history of the Cities and each City has budgeted but $10,000? How many times more did the City of Clayton outlay in overhauling and glamorizing the modestly utilized erstwhile “doggy” park on Wydown east of Hanley Road? Finally, it’s disappointing that Richmond Heights has so little regard for this study that they were willing to table it when the price tag was $20,000.

While the Mayor postulates that there is a lot of expertise is to be found among the citizens of Richmond Heights and Clayton, it would be surprising if even a single person had city merger experience. Without the perspective of being involved with city mergers, how can you even assure that your agenda is complete? Among the 40 citizens will there be any who is so totally disinterested as to not have a prejudiced “yes” or “no” opinion of whether or not a merger should be accomplished? The Mayor concludes, “We certainly don't need an expensive expert to tell us why a merger might be good or not good.” Whether or not this assertion is true, using a consultant to lead the study can be effective in assuring the citizens of Richmond Heights and Clayton that the agenda covers all bases, the issues have been appropriately evaluated, the weightings given to various issues are reasonable, wheels aren’t spun, the study is legitimate, and strong personalities have not controlled the study to their own agendas.

The draft of the resolution to form the Joint Study Committee did not outline objective criteria for selecting Committee membership. How will the Cities assure their citizens that the process of selecting members is beyond reproach and that an objective group deserving of the trust of the Cities has been formed? (This is precisely why state lottery drawings are performed by an independent accounting firm. Anyone can draw a ball out of a barrel.).

Two of our Aldermen recently indicated there have been no discussions – even the JSC selection criteria had not been discussed – and in fact, that the Richmond Heights Council and Board had yet to meet one another in the 7 plus months that have ensued since the Mayor first introduced the merger idea. A number of people have reacted to this inactivity that our leaders (other than our Mayor) appear to have little interest issuing pejorative comments such as “this is the Mayor’s baby.” Further supporting citizens’s concern is that Clayton has announced the JSC but Richmond Heights has not. So far, there appears to be nothing joint about this venture and if there has been planning, it has not been shared on Clayton’s website or otherwise.

There is more than simply an iota of genuine community distrust of the motivations behind the impending merger discussions. The words of interested officials – no matter how sincere and well articulated – are not going to marshal this trust. Where have been the actions to back this up?

It may very well be appropriate to conduct this study without seeking outside assistance. On the other hand, shouldn’t the issue of retaining consultants at least be an agenda discussion item and part of due diligence and not a priori discarded?

Finally, while it may appear this way, the criticism is not against either the Mayor or his actions. He is doing his job: He has a vision and is bringing it to the people and is applauded for having the courage to entertain a notion that he knows will have a great deal of unpopularity and controversy. What is the Board doing to help shape this vision?

Sincerely,
Andrew B. Rochman

Cc: The Honorable Ben Uchitelle – City of Clayton
The Honorable Betty Humphrey – City of Richmond Heights
Richmond Heights City Council

Statement to RH Council - June 20, 2005

My name is Andy Rochman and I live in Clayton. Both Clayton and Richmond Heights have told their citizens that a merger of the two cities is an idea worthy of consideration. Potential benefits, such as economies of scale, might accrue though it has been emphasized that such consolidation would not include a merger of school districts.

An idea worthy of consideration is not a reason in itself for outlaying dollars and time to study it. Possibly, Washington U and Fontbonne or Fontbonne and Concordia Seminary could enjoy economies of consolidation. Yet, given the difference in the cultures, is this vision worthy of study?

Why is a merger needed? Each City had stated that it is dealing from a position of strength. So, we citizens have concluded that nothing is seriously or irreparably broken. It is perplexing that no cogent rationale has been provided for even studying a merger of RH and Clayton. As the cities have already demonstrated, if there are potential cost-savings of consolidating functions, these could be realized without merging the cities. As pointed out in the November 11th meeting, such efforts already addressed are “cooperative police and fire dispatch, common purchasing, sharing of certain assets, cooperative street repairs and the like.”

Apart from some comments by Amy Liu of Brookings Institution to the citizens of Clayton on November 11th, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the economic and emotional downside that the cities’ merging could bring. Realistically, however, we know that in the beginning additional expense would arise – some because we would be opening a black box of unknown dimensions, some attributable to duplication of services, some to the costs of consolidation such as erection of new facilities and abandoning existing ones (there will be only one city hall). How long the road to payback may be could be well beyond the lifetimes of the current citizens. Is either city positioned to dig such a financial hole?

More important. Where human emotions are concerned, there is no such transaction as a merger. This is observed in the corporate world all the time. Generally, there are winners and losers as “we-they” becomes a new way of life. The culture of one community will be foisted on the other. But even the winners may lose something as their City name disappears or is conjoined with the other. Merging Richmond Heights and Clayton, like merging the United States and Canada, would involve the painstaking challenge of bringing together two bordering neighbors that have a lot of commonality but also vast dissimilarities.

Notwithstanding committing to the expense of conducting a study which may greatly exceed the suggested $35,000 to $40,000 cited in the April/May Richmond Heights Community Update, prudence would demand demonstrating a priori that you can identify concrete reasons why it might be worth the pain to merge the two cities. In the 7+ months since the November 11th meeting, have the RH Council and Clayton Board of Aldermen assembled and discussed the mutual merits of conducting a merger study?

If you can’t jot down off the top of your head 5 strong reasons why a merger would benefit your citizens, then you really have to question whether a measure as severe as a merger should even be considered let alone studied. You don’t need someone else to convince you of its benefits.

The RH Council voted without discussion 6-2 in favor of participating in the Joint Study Merger Study.

Welcome Visitors!

Guidelines for posting to this web site are located on the sidebar. Follow all the steps and you will be able to publish on this web site. For your convenience, there are quick links to the official web sites of Clayton and Richmond Heights. Coming soon, there will be additional links to JSC (Joint Study Committee) activities.

Bookmark and visit this web site http://mergerstudy.org to keep regularly updated.

If you currently have a RSS (Real Simple Syndication) news feeder installed on your computer, the blog or feed URL address required to configure it is http://mergerstudy.blogspot.com/atom.xml. To obtain a free RSS reader, click here or on the link located on the sidebar.

Email questions or corrections to the Web Site Administrator at mergerstudy@gmail.com