So... could we save a lot of money if we consolidated some local governments and school districts?

In a column three weeks ago, I argued that we couldn't and based part of my argument on information from Kent Gardner, president of the Center for Governmental Research, which has done a good bit of research on the topic.

The retorts came pretty quickly: from former mayor (and metro proponent) Bill Johnson - and from Charlie Zettek, who has done a good bit of CGR's research on consolidation.

Zettek and his boss, as it turns out, disagree on the issue. Gardner continues to say that there wouldn't be "substantial" savings. Zettek says there would be.

"We're just coming at this from different approaches," Zettek says. And then he brings up the key point: "It depends on how you define ‘substantial.'"

He points to a recent CGR study of Penn Yan, where consolidating the village police department and the county sheriff's department could lower village taxes by 18 percent. Gardner argues that 18 percent isn't a lot of money. "I would say that's substantial," Zettek counters. Whether it's enough to get people to support a merger, however, is another matter. So far, nothing has happened in Penn Yan.

"What's the tipping point," asks Zettek, "to get people to support leaders to make the change?" Some people would be willing to accept consolidation if it saved them $10 a year in taxes. Others wouldn't unless the savings were $1000.

But Zettek brings up another issue, which I didn't touch on in my October 29 column: Even if the savings are small individually - merging a couple of villages with their towns, merging a couple of school districts or fire districts - it's possible (not certain, but possible) that collectively, the savings could be substantial.

There are a lot of unknowns here, and a lot of ifs. If we merged all of the county police departments, we would have to bring all salaries up to the level of the highest-paid force. That would cost money, not save it - unless consolidation let us provide the same quality service with fewer cops.

According to the Rochester Business Journal's latest Book of Lists, all but three of the highest-paid public officials in Monroe County are school administrators: superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals. Could a county-wide school district operate with fewer administrators?

Suppose that by consolidating a bit here and a bit there, we save a bit here and a bit there - and overall, the savings are big, and our taxes drop. Would enough of us - city, town, village residents - be willing to support change at our most local level so that we benefited overall?

And here, Zettek brings up "The Tragedy of the Commons," an essay written by ecologist Garrett Hardin. The premise: individuals often behave in ways that benefit them but harm the whole. Hardin's example was of a group of herdsmen whose cattle grazed on a common pasture. Because it benefited them individually, each kept adding cattle to the pasture until the pasture was destroyed.

And Zettek tells of a public hearing on consolidating the village and town of Allegany. After listening to his neighbors insist that things were fine just the way they were, a young man stood up and asked: If you really believe nothing needs to change, why are young people leaving? And why are there no jobs?

So are we better off, collectively, acting individually? Or are we wasting money? There's one way to find out. Nobody's done an extensive study of the cost savings of meaningful consolidation in Monroe County. Maybe the county should commission CGR to do one.

Zettek, Gardner, and I all agree that there are many reasons to consolidate, even if we wouldn't save money. Consolidation would provide better government and break down barriers. If it also saved us a pot of money, nobody'd be happier than I.