Corporate Governance and Voluntary Disclosure Relationship

The present study addresses the potential benefits and costs of the fire districts and municipal fire departments consolidation in Lee County. In particular, it examines how the proposed legislation to create the Lee County Fire Control and Rescue District is potentially effective in improving efficiency and reducing the cost of public services. This article contains an introduction and discussion of the problem, a literature review, proposed methodology, solutions and recommendation, budget and timetable for implementation, and evaluation of results sections then ending with my conclusion.

I will analyze if it would be advantageous for Lee County, Florida to consolidate all their fire department special districts into Lee County Fire Control and Rescue District compared to others that have done so in the past. I will develop three alternative solutions or ways to address this issue or problem from my research. I am taking the role of a consulting firm to prepare an internal consulting report to be presented to my management team with my recommendation. The name of my consulting firm is “We are the Taxpayers”.

Introduction and Discussion of the Problem

The very word “consolidation” still has a tendency to raise a level of anxiety in so many. Some view it as the greatest money saver of all times or the best method to improve services; others the loss of their power or job. Ironically, it could be none of all of the above. Simply, consolidation equals change, and change is most difficult for many individuals and professions – especially those with strong traditions, such as the fire departments.

Representative Matt Caldwell is proposing legislation that would potentially merge the sixteen independent fire districts and two municipal fire departments in Lee County into one district, a total of 18, forming the Lee County Control and Rescue District. This local bill would maintain each district territory as a service delivery area, pending existing debt. “Consolidation as a means of reducing costs and improving services has been debated in Lee County for several decades,” Caldwell said. “I look forward to participating in a public process that will finally bring this question to the taxpayers.” If passed, this local bill would obligate every independent fire district and municipal fire department in Lee County to a referendum (Caldwell, 2018).

If a service delivery area votes “No” in the referendum, another referendum cannot be called until five years have passed. A new referendum election can be called by either the board or by petition of five percent of qualified electors of a local independent district. If a service delivery area votes “Yes” in the referendum. All assets and liabilities of current districts are transferred to the new district. Debt payments remain the responsibility of the service delivery area (taxing subunit) that initially incurred them (Smith, 2018).

Residents only liable for existing debts benefitted from, not total inherited debt of district. “This proposal is consistent with the input we have received over the last several years, namely: that voters should make the final choice and that any new consolidated district should remain organized as an independent special district,” Caldwell said (Caldwell, 2018). As you can tell, this has become a very political subject. The majority of the fire districts sent letters to their local senate and representatives that they were not interested in doing this. Mostly, they would all like to keep their districts locally, so we can be more attentive to our own property owners in each district.

Consolidation is the preferred option for many public services in Lee County. Lee County currently has 18 separate fire districts, which makes the structure quite fragmented. This situation can significantly negatively affect both the efficiency and the cost of public services. Additionally, fragmentation of this area can result in higher taxes on citizens, which also reduces trust in public services. Consolidation can be a solution to improve the situation, as it potentially addresses existing problems.

In particular, the merger of districts can help eliminate effort duplication and improve resource allocation. Economies of scale can reduce the cost of services per citizen, which also potentially results in lower tax burdens. In general, the larger structure is better positioned to acquire equipment, train specialists, and provide specialized services. It is also important that consolidation is a means of eliminating boundaries and facilitating the collaboration process, which also has a potentially positive effect on efficiency.

However, when considering the consolidation process, it is also necessary to consider the multiple barriers that may arise during implementation. In particular, it is necessary to address legal restrictions that may require additional solutions. Additionally, the cultural differences that each district possesses are critical, which potentially hinder the merger. In this regard, a problem arises with the branding of the new organization and the appointment of its head.

Forming the council of a new organization also requires restructuring the councils of existing districts, which can be difficult to make decisions. Finally, public support and communication with service consumers are important, who can evaluate the consolidation taking into account various factors. It is also worth noting that the consolidation process requires additional costs for the districts, which implies a thorough assessment of potential benefits. In this regard, the problem addressed in this study is how advantageous it is for fire districts in Lee County to enter the consolidation process in the Lee County Fire Control and Rescue District.

Literature Review

Currently, the consolidation of municipal governments and public service providers is not as widespread in the literature as it used to be. This factor is explained by the fact that over the past decades, researchers have emphasized that the fragmentation of the management system has a negative impact on its effectiveness. Consolidation is thus viewed as a measure of simplifying the connections between different parts through their transformation into integral pieces of the structure (Herrmann & Destalle, 2017). Consolidation potentially leads to a number of benefits for both the provider and the consumer of the service (Herrmann & Destalle, 2017).

However, this process is also fraught with a number of difficulties that can have a negative impact and neglect potential benefits (Herrmann & Destalle, 2017). Thus, it is important to evaluate all the pros and cons of consolidation, not only in theoretical but also in practical terms, through consideration of a particular structure. In different conditions, the set of factors required for accounting varies, which makes consolidation difficult without sufficient information.

Consolidation is one of the ways various agencies can collaborate to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of public services. Administrative consolidation means that one agency oversees the administration of another while keeping operations separate (McGrath & McGrath, 2016). Operational consolidation implies that the two agencies combine administrative and operational activities to operate as a single organization (McGrath & McGrath, 2016). Finally, consolidation through a merger suggests that the agency is absorbed into an arc structure that now provides services to a larger area as a new organization (McGrath & McGrath, 2016). Thus, consolidation leads to the creation of a new organization within which there is a closer collaboration in the provision of public services.

Potential Benefits of Consolidation

There are a number of fundamental reasons justifying why consolidation is preferred for public services. Karcher (1998) identifies that the presence of many special districts and local municipalities is the primary reason for the inefficiency of the state government. In particular, duplication of services has a significant negative impact on their quality and cost (Karcher, 1998). Dilorenzo (1981) emphasizes that in addition to the duplication of services, appears “confusion among citizen-taxpayers with respect to how the government is organized” (p. 569). This situation potentially reduces trust in the government and the provider of services, which results in less security for citizens.

Hall et al. (2018) note that more fragmented governance within the public service area is unable to seize opportunities to reduce costs of a particular service resulting in economies of scale. Thus, it is easier and more efficient to manage the whole structure rather than its individual and independent parts.

Consolidation of services is the preferred option for improving quality while reducing costs. Maher (2015) notes that among the most important reasons for choosing consolidation over other forms of separation of services is the potential cost reduction through a reduction in the number of employees, retaining, and improvement in the quality of services. Leland and Thurmaier (2005) emphasize that attempts at municipal consolidation (city-county merger) did not meet with voter approval in most cases. On the contrary, the consolidation of public service efforts finds more political support than privatization (Leland & Thurmaier, 2005).

In particular, these measures are perceived as more effective, as they can potentially reduce costs through the destruction of positions, duplication of services, as well as more efficient distribution of equipment and buildings (Holzer & Fry, 2011). Miyazaki (2017) emphasizes that while expenditures increase significantly immediately after consolidation, they gradually and steadily decline over time after the process is complete. Thus, the consolidation of fire districts is not only potentially beneficial but also gains public acceptance.

In the context of interaction with taxpayers, an important aspect is also the potential reduction of the tax burden after the consolidation. Public services are capital intensive, allowing larger structures to leverage economies of scale to lower the fixed cost per user (Hall & Matti, 2018). In particular, high costs are spread over a large number of users within a larger system, which reduces the burden on each taxpayer.

In addition, consolidation raises issues of equity in which residents may be concerned about an unequal distribution of services. However, as stated by Hall and Matti (2018), “special districts covering multiple jurisdictions can provide both rich and poor residents with the same service quality” (p. 10). Thus, consolidation can potentially both reduce the tax bill of residents and improve the quality of service delivery through more equal provision.

Fire departments and districts are critical parts of local government that deal with a wide range of public threats. However, as stated by Herrmann and Destalle (2017), these structures often “confront questions of overlapping resources and governmental fragmentation” (p. 1). These factors negatively affect both the cost and the quality of public services. In particular, difficulties arise in the area of ​​jurisdiction when the nearest available fire department cannot respond to an emergency (Herrmann & Destalle, 2017). Thus, the response time to emergencies for citizens is significantly increased, which puts their well-being at risk and reduces the quality of public services. Consolidation of fire districts and departments is potentially an effective measure to address this challenge and improve communication both within the fire district and with the public.

Another important aspect that characterizes consolidation effort as an effective measure is better resource allocation and lower service costs. In particular, Fan et al. (2017) emphasize that “consolidating resources and management can achieve higher efficiency of government agency operations than freestanding departments” (p. 7). Centralizing coordination efforts, allocating tasks and resources, and supervision enables emergency agencies to better respond to different types of threats. Additionally, fire districts can often become fragmented, causing the need for across boundaries collaboration (Fan et al., 2017).

This aspect results in possible procedural difficulties, an increase in the time for agreeing on various solutions, which also reduces the efficiency of public services. It is also important that centralized management improves capital asset acquisition; individual districts can often experience difficulties in purchasing specialized equipment, which is easier to achieve at the regional level (Fan et al., 2017). Thus, improving the quality of services and reducing costs is the main reason for consolidation.

However, researchers also identify other reasons for choosing consolidation for public services. Feiock (2009) notes that considering options for alternative delivery of public services also includes considering the political context is equal to the economic one. Additionally, Hilvert and Swindell (2013) emphasize that cooperation and consolidation increase the demand for public services due to the growth of their quality. For fire departments and districts, this aspect is also important, as it allows to increase the overall security of the population through better communication.

It is also worth noting that, among other important aspects, the improvement of relations between different structures stands out, which improves coordination and exchange of experience (Hilvert & Swindell, 2013). Most importantly, consolidation enables you to more effectively solve multidimensional problems that require a concerted effort (Hilvert & Swindell, 2013). Thus, consolidation has multiple potential benefits for the fire districts and local governments.

Potential Barriers for Consolidation

The literature also indicates potential problems that can become an obstacle to consolidation. In particular, Taylor et al. (2020) note that the failure or success of a referendum may be influenced by “the approach to services (particularly public safety), the distribution of taxes, and land use regulations” (p. 338). The main difficulty lies in the distribution of the tax burden in the consolidation of fire districts.

Thus, unification can potentially cause tension and conflict between residents of different districts. The proliferation of new services in some districts that were not previously introduced may not be encouraged enough and may cause dissatisfaction (Taylor et al., 2020). Thus, consolidation may benefit residents who have used a large number of services before consolidation, while less active consumers may experience higher taxes. However, in the case of fire districts consolidation, this aspect may be less significant, which requires a fiscal analysis.

One of the important aspects for consideration is also the peculiarities of the legal framework within which the consolidation is conducted. Herrmann and Destalle (2017) note that “economies of scale gained from a merger and trust between the two jurisdictions were enough to overcome these limitations” (Herrmann & Destalle, 2017, p. 13). Additionally, overcoming legal barriers can be accomplished through the focus of collaborative service arrangements, and not on electoral consolidation (Herrmann & Destalle, 2017).

Another major challenge may be the desire of various deputies and districts to maintain autonomy. In the context of fire districts consolidation, this is due to the rich tradition and history of this public service. Janeway (2015) notes that “such issues as the name of the new organization, the color of emergency apparatus and the selection of an individual to head the organization… can derail consolidation discussion” (p. 7). Thus, more diverse operating cultures are more difficult to merge into one new organization (Johnson, 2015). However, each fire district and department has its own distinctive features and characteristics that can impede successful consolidation, which also potentially lowers morale.

Proposed Methodology

A review of the literature identified key aspects to be addressed in this study. In particular, it should be noted that the consolidation process involves a variety of stakeholders, including employees and community members. Thus, within the framework of the study, it is necessary to collect data that would be relevant for these groups. For research and reporting, it is necessary to consider the experience of consolidating other fire districts. First of all, it is critical to formulate research questions that could form the basis of the study and establish the direction of the research (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). Furthermore, the open-ended research questions might reveal any potential literature gaps allowing for more comprehensive planning of the paper (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). The four research questions are presented below:

1. How effective or ineffective were consolidation efforts for fire districts?
2. What elements were the most drivers of successful consolidation?
3. What difficulties can arise during the consolidation process?
4. What are the most beneficial consequences of consolidations?

The proposed methodology utilizes a ‘mixed methods’ approach and examines both the perceptions and statistical data. Therefore, the framework answers the questions of quantitative and qualitative research designs (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). The former concerns the numerical data regarding the attitude of employees toward consolidation. The responses to close-ended questions in the survey (Appendix B) will be transformed into generalized statistical data, which represents the overall perspective on consolidation. Thus, the quantitative part of the research supports the major findings by supporting them with numerical information (Timans et al., 2019).

On the other hand, the qualitative approach concerns the perception of the workers. In general, qualitative research allows for more in-depth studies, which illustrate the attitude, beliefs, worries, and potential solutions to the problems based on respondents’ answers (Timans et al., 2019). Ultimately, the current methodology utilizes a ‘mixed methods’ approach and addresses both quantitative and qualitative research designs.

Concerning data collection, the two implemented methods are semi-structured interviews and surveys. The former (Appendix A) consists primarily of open-ended questions and is aimed to identify the perception and feelings of workers toward consolidation (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). Approximately ten to fifteen interviews will be conducted with employees from the various fire departments in an offline manner if the pandemic restrictions permit. Such sample size allows for in-depth conversations and mitigates the possibility of data saturation (Moser & Korstjens, 2018). Ultimately, semi-structured interviews are effective methods of qualitative data collection and are appropriate for the scope of the current paper.

On the other hand, the survey (Appendix B) primarily consists of close-ended questions aimed to determine the ratio of people who are satisfied or discontent with the consolidation process. Surveys are frequently used for both quantitative and qualitative purposes, depending on the nature of the questions (Kelley-Quon & Lorraine, 2018). The current study primarily utilizes surveys to determine statistical ratios by implementing close-ended analytic questions instead of descriptive inquiries (Kelley-Quon & Lorraine, 2018). Therefore, it is essential to conduct as many surveys as possible since there is no risk of data saturation. The surveys will be completed in an online form via applications, such as Google Forms or Survey Monkey, and sent to the employees of various fire districts.

Consequently, the collected data will be analyzed via thematic analysis. In general, this approach refers to a method of a theme classification based on the responses of the interviewees (Terry et al., 2017). It is further planned to divide the clusters into thematic groups, which will make it possible to identify key factors and avoid potential research errors (Terry et al., 2017). It will also be necessary to categorize the identified groups according to their importance and potential impact on the consolidation process and identify critical points. This process will help understand which aspects need to be considered and which could become barriers to successful consolidation.

In theory, the data obtained will provide important information about elements of existing structures that should be taken into account when deciding and planning the consolidation process. Cultural differences and the branding of a new organization when consolidating different districts can become the basis for disrupting the implementation process (Sciriha & Debono, 2017). Thus, it is also important to collect information that could address these points.

This data is necessary in order to take into account the highlighted aspects when developing the implementation plan and address them at an early stage of the consolidation. Communication with employees during the consolidation process is key to the branding of the new organization and the distribution of positions (Hilvert & Swindell, 2013). Additionally, maintaining morale during the consolidation process is essential to maintaining a high level of service quality. The obtained data will also allow an understanding of what efforts will need to be made to successfully complete the consolidation. At this stage, it will be possible to identify operational, economic, human resources, and social factors that are critical in developing a consolidation plan.

Ultimately, the proposed methodology utilized a ‘mixed methods’ approach. The data is collected via semi-structured interviews and surveys. Consequently, the qualitative data is examined via thematic analysis, while the quantitative information is analyzed and illustrated via basic functions in Excel. As a result, the qualitative aspect provides the major findings, such as perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of workers, concerning the consolidation of fire departments. On the other hand, the quantitative data supports these findings and presents a diverse perspective on the topic. Nevertheless, regardless of the ultimate decision, there is a number of alternative solutions, which are presented in the following sub-chapter.

Solutions and Recommendations

One of the alternative solutions for addressing the problem is the production of a comprehensive feasibility study. This study should focus on the financial positions of the districts under consideration so that potential changes in costs can be accurately identified. Within the framework of this study, it is important to determine how financially beneficial this process is for each of the districts included in the consolidation. In particular, it is important to identify whether consolidation costs will not be negative for any of the districts or departments and whether funding from other districts will be required.

This study can be conducted on the basis of previously identified points that affect the consolidation process. It is important for the districts to assess the individual financial capacity for consolidation including current liabilities and assets. This study can also help in creating a plan for allocating resources and employees after the end of the consolidation process. However, this strategy requires the involvement of outside experts to assess the financial situation and advice on further actions.

The second alternative solution is the formation of an advisory committee, which will consist of members of the council, administration, and Chiefs of the consolidation structures. This option will allow the most effective consideration of the current situation and make a forecast for the consolidation process. In particular, this recommendation will help to identify possible cultural differences that could potentially become an obstacle to consolidation (Sciriha & Debono, 2017). Collaboration of key district members can contribute to the early discussion of these aspects and the development of methods to overcome them (Alyosef & Alsughayer, 2021).

This committee may also be competent enough to make a financial assessment of the current districts (Alyosef & Alsughayer, 2021). Leaders in current districts have an awareness of the needs and capabilities of each district and can articulate them to the community. The advantage of this strategy also lies in the ability to communicate with the public through the district leadership representatives (Foster, 2020). This measure will create trust between public services and the community, which will positively affect the results of the referendum.

A third alternative solution is to develop an internal and external communication plan. An internal communication plan implies regular events in which the Chiefs of the consolidated districts communicate with employees, which will identify concerns and eliminate them. An external communication plan involves Chiefs communicating with community members to increase public acceptance (Khadidja & Ouardia, 2020).

This aspect is important for gaining community support and the successful conclusion of the referendum. This measure also includes an assessment of the financial situation of the districts with the involvement of all employees. Additionally, it is necessary to identify potential costs based on information obtained during communication about possible obstacles and the needs of the public (Khadidja & Ouardia, 2020). This strategy is generally very similar to an advisory committee, only it excludes direct communication between members of different districts.

All of these alternative recommendations are aimed at the early identification of difficulties that may arise in the process of consolidation implementation. In particular, they allow both to identify potential threats and to address them for the potentially successful completion of the process. However, the most important in the framework of this study is the second option presented. The formation of an advisory committee will allow not only to identify all potential difficulties associated with the consolidation process but also to study the conditions in the districts. Through the communication of members of different structures, important decisions on the planning and implementation of the consolidation process can be reached.

It is also important that this approach will identify the concerns of employees, which they can present through representatives of their district. Most significantly, within the framework of the committee, members of the councils will be able to consider issues of future restructuring and the appointment of the head of the combined organization. Finally, within the framework of the general meeting, the process of discussing decisions and their approval is greatly simplified since it involves regular sessions.

Budget and Timetable of Implementation

The costs of organizing the advisory board include the need for organizing meetings and communication. In particular, it is necessary to select a room for regular sessions, as well as to ensure permanent recording. Thus, it is necessary to include in the budget the costs of an additional employee who will be able to fulfill the job of a secretary (Alyosef & Alsughayer, 2021). It is also important to note that the budget for this decision also includes the work of various advisory bodies, which can provide reports on the current status of districts (Alyosef & Alsughayer, 2021). The timeline for the committee’s work includes collecting information, making an assessment, and reporting on potential costs and benefits of consolidation.

This process, presumably including the organization of the committee, will take 3 months. Of these, 2 weeks will be spent on gathering the advisory committee and developing the appropriate procedures. It will take 1.5 months to analyze and collect data for the districts. Another 2 weeks will be spent on analyzing the information and discussing important aspects that should be taken into account. Finally, 2 weeks are needed to generate reports and make appropriate corrections.

Evaluation of Results

Evaluation of the results of the effectiveness of the proposed solution should occur at all stages of the functioning of the committee. The first step in evaluating results is the successful formation of the committee and the establishment of procedures for its functioning. The second step in the assessment is the completeness of the data collection required to assess the potential consolidation outcomes. The third stage of the assessment is the formation of the report and comparison of the information obtained with the data obtained in the course of research. In this case, the proposed solution can be considered successful if the mutual agreement of all the committee members has been reached on the potential positive or negative impact of consolidation.

Conclusion

Consolidation is the main method for overcoming fragmentation in the structure of public services. However, despite a large number of potential advantages, this process is fraught with difficulties and potentially negative effects. The initiative proposed by lawmakers to consolidate sixteen districts and two municipal departments in Lee County meets with opposition from individual districts. This situation is political as it involves a referendum and the participation of voters of the service area. At the same time, it may impede the efficient operation of the Lee County fire districts. Thus, it is necessary to form an advisory committee that would be able to collect all the necessary information on consolidation and existing districts and make a decision on potential benefits and costs.

References

Alyousef, L., & Alsughayer, S. (2021). The Relationship between Corporate Governance and Voluntary Disclosure: The Role of Boards of Directors and Audit Committees. Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance, 9(4), 678-692.

Caldwell, M. (2018). Caldwell: Fire district consolidation makes sense. The News-Press. Web.

Dilorenzo, T. J. (1981). The expenditure effects of restricting competition in local public service industries: The case of special districts. Public Choice, 37, 569-578.

Fan, Y., French, M. L., Duray, R., & Stading, G. L. (2017). Service strategy to improve operational capabilities in the public sector. The Service Industries Journal, 37(11-12), 1-23. Web.

Feiock, R. C. (2009). Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 356-377.

Foster, M. (2020). Examining Collaboration within US National Park Service Advisory Committees. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 38(4).

Hall, J. C., & Matti, J. (2018). City-county consolidation in St. Louis: An analysis. Center for Economics and the Environment, 20, 1-20.

Hall, J. C., Matti, J., & Zhou, Y. (2018). Regionalization and consolidation of municipal taxes and services. The Review of Regional Studies, 48(2), 245-262. Web.

Herrmann, R., & Destalle, A. (2017). Understanding the drivers and barriers to fire department consolidation in Illinois. Illinois Municipal Policy Journal, 2(1), 1-15.

Hilvert, C., & Swindell., D. (2013). Collaborative service delivery: Whar every local government manager should know. State and Local Government Review, 45(4), 240-254.

Holzer, M., & Fry, J. C. (2011). Shared services & municipal consolidation – A critical analysis. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Jeneway, W. F. (2014). Emergency service consolidation principles and practices [Manual]. Glatfelter.

Johnson, J. (2015). Cooperative service. In R. Marinucci (Ed.), The fire chiefs handbook (7th ed., pp. 553-566). Pennwell.

Karcher, A. (1998). New Jersey’s multiple municipal madness. Rutgers University Press.

Kelley-Quon, L. I. (2018). Surveys: Merging qualitative and quantitative research methods. In Seminars in Pediatric Surgery (Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 361-366). WB Saunders.

Khadidja, M. S., & Ouardia, L. (2020). External communication strategies, a new digital paradigm for social security companies. Journal of Social Protection Research, 1, 59-66.

Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2017). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs. European Journal of General Practice, 23(1), 274-279.

Leland, S., & Thurmaier, K. (2005). When efficiency is unbelievable: Normative lessons from 30 years of city-county consolidations. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 475-489.

Maher, C. S. (2015). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of service consolidation on local government expenditures. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 393-425.

McGrath, T., & McGrath, V. (2016). Fire service consolidations: Is it inevitable? Web.

Miyazaki, T. (2017). Examining the relationship between municipal consolidation and cost reduction: An instrumental variable approach. Applied Economics, 50(10), 1-14. Web.

Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9-18.

Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107-131.

Sciriha, I., & Debono, M. (2017). The effects and management of cultural differences during the integration process of mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Media Critiques, 3, 31-50. Web.

Smith, B. (2018). Lee County legislative delegation backs non-binding referendum on fire district consolidation. The News-Press. Web.

Taylor, C. D., Faulk, D., & Schaal, P. (2020). The varieties of consolidation experience: A synthesis and extension of local government consolidation models. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(3), 325-353. Web.

Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 17-37.

Timans, R., Wouters, P., & Heilbron, J. (2019). Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2), 193-216.

Appendix A

Interview Questions

1. What was your position during the consolidation process?
2. Which agencies were involved in the consolidation process?
3. Why did your current organization see consolidation as a necessary and preferred option?
4. Did district and departmental staff support the consolidation decision?
5. Did employees have concerns about the upcoming consolidation and were they addressed?
6. Did the public support the consolidation decision?
7. How did the restructuring of the governing boards occur?
8. How was the organization’s personnel restructured?
9. How did the branding of the new organization proceed?
10. Did you anticipate cost reductions after the end of the consolidation process and were they achieved?
11. How long did it take to complete the consolidation process?
12. Was a reduction in the tax burden on citizens expected and was it achieved after the consolidation?
13. What was the cost of the consolidation?
14. Do you think consolidation is recommended for implementation by other districts and departments?
15. What aspects do you believe to be the most significant to consider when deciding whether to consolidate?

Appendix B

Survey Questions

1. Are you aware of the consolidation process of the fire districts?
2. How do you feel about this initiative?
3. What potential difficulties do you think might arise?
4. Do you think the process will be beneficial?
5. Do you feel distrust of public services at the moment?
6. Do you consider the tax burden unnecessarily high?
7. What information do you need to vote for consolidation?
8. Did you initially support the consolidation decision?
9. Do you believe that consolidation will deliver long-term benefits?
10. How would you characterize your current work following the consolidation of the districts?
11. What negative consequences of consolidation are you experiencing?
12. What positive consequences of consolidation are you experiencing?
13. Do you think that your district (department) has lost its individuality and autonomy after consolidation?
14. Do you see efficiency gains and cost savings after consolidation?
15. Would you like to point out any concerns about consolidation?
16. Do you find consolidation generally a successful and preferred option?