In my periodic look at government reform, I offer a second specific suggestion: Let’s courageously ask the structural question of what level of government should deliver what type of services given today’s reality. In essence our current model of the basic relationship between cities, counties, special taxing districts such as ports and the state has been virtually unchanged for decades.

Now, it’s time for a radical rethinking of the relationship between the various levels of government. That means more than just the City of Seattle, King County and the State of Washington, it means the interconnected relationship between different levels of government from top to bottom.

Why? Because the city, county and state have different operational and financial roles. They have different core competencies. It’s time to question those roles from a systems perspective and to ponder who should be doing what for the benefit of taxpayers, citizens and government’s ability to delivery.

Given that the state holds the power to grant taxation authority to different levels of government, we need to approach the core question in a fresh way. That doesn’t mean, of course, that everything is inherently broken or inefficient, it just means that it’s been a long time since we’ve conducted a sort of ‘zero based performance assessment’ of our system of delivering public services.

We have created hundreds of taxing districts, special taxing authorities, and dedicated funds, and yet we hardly seem to be able to keep track of them. We need a performance audit of sorts of our own distribution of taxing authority not simply to get a handle on who is charging what, but to ask together what model makes the most sense in today’s world.

Last year I asked the state Department of Revenue if we could create a simple, elegant website where a person could enter their home or business address and EVERY tax they paid–and the direct public services they received for it–would be delivered easily on one page. The data doesn’t exist in one place (county auditors, state, etc.) and would be expensive and complex to develop. That tells me that we have become so decentralized in our management of our taxing authority that we’re losing clarity. And it tells us that our IT systems are stuck in yesterday’s era without simple interoperabillity.

For example on the service delivery side: Today there is a Seattle Office of Civil Rights, a King County Office of Civil Rights, and a state Human Rights Commission. The problem surfaces when you look deeper at what the three offices do. A majority of grievance cases filed in Washington state come from King County, according to my recollection. A majority of cases filed in King County come from Seattle.

Simply, the data suggests we should probably have a Seattle area regional office, paid by shared resources but accountable to one entity, to handle all civil rights cases that are filed in this region and save the duplication of services across three levels of government.

In essence, we could probably be smarter financially and operationally by working together in a more structured way. In yesterday’s world every level of government needed to show how seriously it took a given issue by creating an organizational structure or a program. In today’s world we need government to focus on quality, cost, value, efficiency and effectiveness because the stakes matter to real people living real lives.

I don’t believe that today’s political debate is really about taxes alone. I think it’s really about a more nuanced questioning by the public of the value of public sector service delivery. The public is demanding higher quality services and products at a better price in literally every area of life. From Costco to Starbucks to Restoration Hardware, you can see it in the product lines. In government, it comes out in public discussions about quality of services.

People want to see and touch a sense of value, purpose and meaning….from business, government, religious affiliations and every other institution in their lives.

The largest special taxing district in my district is actually the Port of Seattle. They have both substantial taxing authority and a major role to play in regional economic development. The port is vital to my district’s economic health on every level. Still, from a systems perspective, despite my personal and political support for the current elected and appointed leadership, It’s hard not to wonder whether the state may have, in fact, granted too much taxing authority to the Port with too little transparency relative to other levels of government. I’m not suggesting it is fundamentally broken but I do question whether it’s been too long that the Legislature has conducted a serious review of port districts around the state relative to performance and value and role.

David Brewster of Crosscut raised many related structural questions in a Friday post here. Are we entering a time when Seattle–and her generous taxpayers–will effectively ‘go it alone’ or is it a time for a robust regional approach to our challenges?

Brewster asks, in effect, whether its realistic in today’s polarized environment for progressive Seattle and more conservative surrounding areas to design and build a common agenda–and choose to execute upon it. Good question. We have so many regional bodies and entities–some with their own taxing authority such as Sound Transit–some with strategic oversight and access to federal money such as Puget Sound Regional Council and Puget Sound Partnership.

I can’t help but to ponder whether all of these separate entities–many with their own purse strings– have the unintended consequence of taking the pressure off of elected officials to move outside of their immediate comfort zones to build a more strategic regional agenda.

If we had fewer such special organizations, would we have a more coordinated approach to regional thinking and action plans? Tough call and I could probably make the case either way.

Yet clearly we are at risk of balkanizing our own regional issues. But let’s be serious….from a systems perspective, are the interests of Tukwila or Shoreline or even Bellevue really that radically different than Seattle? Of course not. We sink or swim together.

On some level, my sense is that King County should be the major player in regional thinking.

Over at King County our friends must face the cold hard reality that their critical areas of regional purview– transportation, land use, waste treatment, law enforcement–may in fact be at odds with the old fashioned idea that people living in unincorporated areas of King County can realistically expect a level of service enjoyed in urban communities. It’s not realistic. County Executive Dow Constantine and Deputy Executive Fred Jarrett have clearly embarked on a systems analysis of the structural challenges facing King County. I applaud their conviction and their work, but they can’t do it alone. They need both local governments and Olympia’s help.

In that spirit of candor, let’s ask: Is it fair and appropriate for taxpayers in my Seattle district to pay substantial King County taxes that pay not only for regional services that benefit everyone, but continue the old model of providing direct service delivery in unincorporated King County? Where you choose to live matters–and there are consequences and implications– and it’s not realistic to assume that city taxpayers should continue to subsidize direct services in unincorporated areas to such an extent.

We as the Legislature are, I suggest, inevitably going to look to local and county governments for more direct, hands-on service delivery–with more flexible taxing authority– as one strategy of reducing the scope of state government.

It’s time for a radical rethinking of how we deliver taxing authority to local governments. We must venture into the politically dangerous area where we begin to question old assumptions about what type of services can be delivered where.

Yet let’s acknowledge that our state budget deficit means that we have little option but to consider changing the taxing authority we provide to local governments and shift to a model where additional service obligations rest at the local level. I don’t know how quickly or how far this idea will ultimately go but it seems to me that we have little choice but to explore those serious questions.

Local government officials face the cold hard reality of balanced budget obligations and the burden of governing. We share that burden in Olympia. We are in this together and this is not something we can alone. Only through our partnership with local governments can we examine these tough issues.

I call upon the Governor to assemble a policy working group of legislators, county executives and mayors from across the state and engage in a meaningful, serious and substantive policy analysis and review of who delivers what services–and ask the question of what is the right model for today’s world.

Who should do what?

What lessons have we learned from our current model regarding what works and what does not? Where do local and county governments excel and where do they struggle? What is the most valuable, helpful and useful role for Olympia to support a more coordinated approach to service delivery across cities, counties and regions? And as a teachable moment: What are best practices from around the nation that make sense in today’s world regardless of the political reform it would require here at home?

And, specifically, should we shift more taxing authority and service delivery obligations to local governments and provide less funds directly from Olympia?

Do we have too many or too few local and special taxing districts? Should we provide reform the very nature of how cities, counties and the state interoperate in our collective efforts to serve the public?

We are one state, one Washington, and we need to care for one another. We need to support a statewide system of education, transportation and other vital public and human infrastructure. Yet we also live in a changing world that requires genuine and deep thought about tomorrow’s challenges.

Like most of you, I have very few hard answers but I can’t help but feel these are important questions.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.