There are good reasons to vote no on county row office consolidation:

		David Tessitor, founder of the Pittsburgh Area New Direction Alternative, is author of the proposed open government amendment to the Pittsburgh City Charter (www.RowOfficeReform.info).

The money: Some of the six row offices slated for elimination don't use tax money. Altogether, they turn over millions of dollars to Allegheny County yearly, after deducting their expenses from their various fees.

County Controller Mark Flaherty's report shows expected savings from consolidation, averaged per county resident, amounts to little more than one cent per week. A good part of that penny comes (after huge capital expenditures) from utilizing a single computerized records system. It isn't a panacea, increasing risks of security vulnerabilities or software flaws compromising all county records at once. The number of records won't decrease nor the necessity for paper.

Still, if the county decides to unify records, it already has a computer services department and could mandate by ordinance that the row offices use it for their operations without restructuring or eliminating elected seats.

Elected directors' salaries are set by state law, an appointed administrator's is open.

The agenda: The Allegheny Conference, the folks behind the stadium tax and deals, has sought metropolitanism (i.e. countywide municipal consolidation) for six decades and is organizing now as never before. The coming referendum is round two in their strategy: first the county commissioners; next the row offices; and then the municipalities -- all foisted upon us by touting wishfully projected savings.

In fine print, the conference admits its "Rivers City" proposal, consolidating 39 Mon Valley municipalities, won't save money -- it's about concentrating political power. Ditto row office consolidation.

At a recent pro-metropolitanism meeting, Dan Onorato said a failure to eliminate the row offices could block the next round of consolidation.

Perverted process: Many have been led to mistakenly think county restructuring began in the 1990s with an elected Government Study Commission. Instead, the conference, through the Committee to Prepare Allegheny County for the 21st Century (ComPAC 21), conducted its own "study," starting from the conclusion and then working backwards.

Looking only at counties having government structures that were closest to what they wanted, they reached beyond them, proposing elimination of elected row offices and a unique corporate-style structure, with a "County Chief Executive Officer" as the third-most powerful seat in Pennsylvania. The closest thing found elsewhere? "County Executives" with significantly smaller roles.

In 1997, Elise Hillman spent $20,000 convincing state legislators to remove the right of Allegheny County residents, as citizens of Pennsylvania, to elect a Government Study Commission (first step of a normal home rule process, it could conduct an unbiased study). Instead, the Legislature dictated that we only consider what the conference wanted, postponing elimination of the row offices to increase its chances of passage. Conference staff then helped an appointed Charter Drafting Committee fill in details the Legislature left out.

The charter, which passed in 1998 by a mere 500 votes countywide, mandated appointment this past January of a new Government Review Commission. It's now in place, but before its review can be completed, the conference, et al., are jumping the gun with round two to eliminate the row offices. If they succeed, it won't matter what the current appointed commission says or whether voters might later approve an elected Government Study Commission to conduct an objective, impartial study which might arrive at different findings (perhaps "do nothing" or a different arrangement with or without elected administrators).

Under state law, whenever there is a change in the form of government, another isn't allowed after its implementation for five years, locking into place the conference's wishes. By then, the conference hopes to have finished round three, with our municipalities a thing of the past.

Accountability: What happens if an appointed administrator speaks out? Warden Calvin Lightfoot spoke up when Dan Onorato, as county controller, sought to offset the county deficit by confiscating the Inmate Welfare Fund (private money from inmates' families allocated to buy computers for counseling staff). The Jail Board voted against Onorato. Before taking office as county chief executive, Onorato announced Lightfoot's termination. Elected administrators, being accountable directly to the voters, can't be fired.

A red herring: The city's and region's problems come from bad public policy, not structure. The conference has set that public policy using taxes to massively subsidize real estate speculation (virtually bankrupting the city), and its maneuvering to increase its control. If needless structural changes distract us from addressing that bad policy head on, the conference will continue pursuing its agenda unabated, at our expense, trying to make Pittsburgh what it's not.

Vote NO! We need more democracy, not less.