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