Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Maybe psychology can explain why Luzerne County government in late November nearly went over a cliff.
The county council – consisting of 11 men and women elected to represent residents’ best interests and ensure our government operates optimally – faced two unappealing options.
Option one: Approve the short-term borrowing of $20 million until the state, which currently owes the county about $22 million, catches up on its overdue payments. The state halted the usual flow of funds to Pennsylvania’s counties nearly five months ago because lawmakers in Harrisburg have failed to agree on a budget. By resorting to an emergency “bridge loan,” Luzerne County would have incurred costs estimated at about $200,000. Government services would not have been interrupted.
Option two. Reject any borrowing, run out of money and close the doors. By picking this path, the council would toss government workers into turmoil, as many employees wouldn’t know if, when or how much they would be paid for the remainder of the year. Likewise, people who depend on county services, including the recording of property deeds and wills, would be compelled to go without. Taxpayers ultimately would be on the hook for higher unemployment premiums as a result of the layoffs – a cost estimated to eclipse the $200,000 in loan fees and interest – and potentially millions more because of the county’s downgraded credit rating.
Option one wasn’t fair. Local taxpayers shouldn’t have to cough up extra money because of bullheaded state officials who’ve blown past a budget deadline.
Option two was destructive, the equivalent of tossing a lit cigarette onto dry leaves, mindless of what it might mean for the forest beyond. It put the county in jeopardy.
A slim majority of the council’s members on Nov. 17 picked option two. It made no sense. It resulted in days of lost productivity, as certain county workers scrambled to find solutions to avoid a shutdown and others, no doubt, fretted.
Last Tuesday, on the day the council met again to consider the situation, a story aired on NPR about the psychology behind nations’ negotiations over climate change treaties. Turns out, negotiators for smaller countries sometimes fail to act rationally by agreeing to deals that would curb emissions and protect their people, because they perceive the situation as unfair. The U.S. built its economy on fossil fuels, why shouldn’t they?
In Luzerne County, it appears rational thought finally won the day. One council member flipped her vote on the loan package last week, seemingly making it possible for the government to get through this dry spell.
By all means, the council’s members and others disgusted by the state’s capability to inflict such harm should petition lawmakers to change the protocol so future budget stalemates don’t starve counties and school districts. Likewise, Luzerne County’s leaders must continue to search for practical ways to control spending so the government can build a bigger buffer for emergencies.
The men and women serving on the council, meanwhile, ought to reflect on this crisis and their own handling of it. How might they have been swayed by psychology? And how can the views of the council’s minority bloc generally be given more consideration, so they sense greater fairness and are less prone to take us to the edge?