Combatting the Dysfunction Tax

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Michael R. Ford
May 8, 2026

In communities across the United States, citizens are paying a hidden tax. No, it is not some new fee or utility hike. It is the cost of local government dysfunction. Here in Wisconsin, historically known as a good-government state, news headlines contain stories of local city councils and school boards plagued by infighting, culture war conflict, partisan politics, pettiness and sometimes worse. Ultimately, a dysfunctional governing board hurts the very residents our municipalities and school districts are designed to serve.

For the past 12 years, I have taught Master of Public Administration (MPA) students working in local government. When they consider a job as a city administrator, department head or even an entry-level employee, the first thing they do is Google the municipality, watch a board meeting and talk to others in their professional network. They are looking for red flags. Red flags include:

• Board conflict that is personal or partisan
• Elected officials undermining colleagues during or outside meetings
• Board meetings that feel like congressional hearings with public employees in the hot seat
• Frequent turnover in management positions
• Persistent negativity

When qualified professionals see these red flags, they look elsewhere. Cities and school districts quickly develop reputations as no-go zones for top-tier candidates. The result is often less-qualified employees and employees who view the position as a temporary stop until something better comes along. Either way, the municipality or school district pays the opportunity costs of more training, more job searches and lower organizational capacity.

The public also pays the cost of dysfunction in the form of poor performance. A school board beset by personal conflict and infighting cannot give clear direction to a superintendent, leaving the district without a plan and without a mechanism for accountability. Similarly, a city council with members openly hostile to their mayor or administrator may serve their own desire to undermine an individual at the expense of government performance. Chaos and confusion might make for entertaining politics, but the cost is real and is passed on to taxpayers.

Thankfully, there are tools to combat the dysfunction tax that are available to every public governing board. Those tools collectively fall under the umbrella of good governance. For example, simple steps such as developing job descriptions for elected officials, defining key concepts like accountability and effectiveness and establishing policies for communication between a governing board and the superintendent, mayor or administrator can prevent the conflict and role confusion that negatively affect performance.

Another tool municipalities struggling with dysfunction can consider is hiring a professional administrator. Though not appropriate for every municipality, research shows that a professional administrator or manager hired by the council or board to oversee the day-to-day operations of government can be especially useful for municipalities struggling to attract employees, unable to implement needed reforms or experiencing high levels of board conflict and political division. Here in Wisconsin, an increasing number of cities, 117 out of 191, are turning to this option.

Another tool is collaboration. As more is asked of local government, there is growing recognition that one government alone cannot meet every community need. Collective impact frameworks, where government serves as a backbone coordinator of services in cooperation with local nonprofits, are one way communities can ensure needs are met strategically in partnership with, rather than directly by, government. The development of special districts, especially in fire service delivery, is another way collaboration can lead to more efficient service delivery despite rising needs and limited capacity in many municipalities.

Importantly, none of the research-based tools described here require more investment from taxpayers. Rather, they are tangible steps local governments can take to combat the dysfunction that erodes trust, limits local government capacity to meet community needs and costs taxpayers resources through lost efficiency and effectiveness. Communities and school districts that embrace these tools will have a competitive advantage over those still paying the dysfunction tax. Those of us teaching MPA students can also set our students up for success by making them familiar with the tools needed to fight the dysfunction tax.

---

Author: Michael Ford is a professor and director of the Whitburn Center for Policy and Governance Research at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.

 

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...