By Gregory Korte
The Cincinnati Enquirer

For at least a decade, City Hall Republicans have been pushing privatization as a way to cut Cincinnati's budget and provide better services to citizens.

But it wasn't until they got support from moderate Democrats in 2001 that they could actually get their program - called "managed competition" - passed through City Council.

Since then, supporters of the plan have complained of slow progress at making the reforms work - and critics say the process is moving too fast, without regard to city workers.

"Managed competition" means city employees bid against the private sector to provide the most efficient services. It doesn't necessarily mean city employees would be laid off - although Republicans say the threat of layoffs is the only way to ensure competition.

With 5-4 votes every step of the way, the results of the Nov. 4 election could have long-felt implications on how the city provides basic services, such as street sweeping, garbage collection and street repairs.

The Republican mantra is heard so often at City Hall that Democrat David Crowley once complained he felt as if he were in the movie Groundhog Day.

"How do we cut the budget? Managed competition. What's the cure for the common cold? Managed competition," Crowley said during one contentious debate over privatization of parking garages.

"It's like a joke," he said. "'Knock-knock.' 'Who's there?' 'Managed competition. Managed competition. Managed competition.' "

Republican Pat DeWine, a chief architect of the plan at City Hall, said it gives city workers incentives to be more productive.

Republican Terry Deters said it's a struggle just to get city workers to properly empty the garbage receptacles in Price Hill. "I think if they had to worry about Rumpke getting their jobs, you can bet they'd get the rings back on the cans," he said.

Cost drives much of the debate. Proponents point to a new street-sweeping contract that could save the city $828,879 while sweeping 48 percent more curb-miles. The company that got the bid has been in a dispute with the city of Indianapolis over the quality of its work there.

Democrat Alicia Reece, who has fought managed competition, said the cost savings are illusory. When the city lays off employees - who are then replaced by private workers making lower wages with no benefits - those workers eventually end up taking more in unemployment and welfare.

"When we cut on the front end, we pay on the back end," she said.

But moderate Democrat David Pepper says there is a middle ground: "I do think managed competition, if done right and paced correctly, is done without layoffs - and the guidelines we put forward go a long way to assuring that."

In fact, Pepper said, managed competition is the best way to avoid the "draconian" layoffs other cities have faced during a financial crisis.

City Council also passed a "living wage" ordinance requiring the city and its contractors to pay at least $8.70 an hour plus benefits to their employees.

Where they stand

The Cincinnati Enquirer asked all 26 candidates for Cincinnati City Council: "Should City Council continue to pursue 'managed competition' as a way to cut costs - even if it means layoffs of city employees?"

• Yes: John Connelly (R), John Cranley (D), Terry Deters (R), Pat DeWine (R), Leslie Ghiz (R), Tom Jones (R), Sam Malone (R), Chris Monzel (R), David Pepper (D), Nick Spencer (C), Barbara W. Trauth (R).

• No: Howard H. Bond (D), Samuel T. Britton (D) , Laketa Cole (D), David C. Crowley (D), Larry J. Frazier (I), Brain Crum Garry (I), Glenn O. Givens Sr. (I), Marilyn Hyland (I), Damon Lynch III (I), Alicia Reece (D), John Schlagetter (C), Christopher Smitherman (C), Jim Tarbell (C), Eric Wilson (I), Pete Witte (R).

---

E-mail gkorte@enquirer.com