Making government more efficient and cost-effective is the idea behind a new effort to change how county governments could operate in Ohio.

But unlike last year’s failed effort to limit union rights, two bills being pitched by the County Commissioners Association of Ohio don’t address workers rights or compensation. Instead, they give counties more options to consolidate government functions, including reducing the number of elected offices.

One of the bills, still in draft form, would allow commissioners to contract for coroner services, which would eliminate the need for an elected county coroner in some counties.

“If they can show us true cost savings and better service, please, we’re open to that,” said David P. Corey, executive director of the Ohio State Coroners Association.

But Corey questioned how much savings would result, particularly since there is already a regional system for autopsies, the most expensive part of a death investigation. The Montgomery County Coroner, for example, conducts autopsies for 21 counties.

“You can’t get a better price than what you have now,” Corey said.

Ohio law requires elected county coroners to be physicians, and the pay varies between $22,090 to $121,323, depending on population.

The second bill is more expansive, allowing for an alternative form of government. The most controversial part of the bill would give counties the authority to merge offices on a grand scale. A county executive or fiscal officer could replace the offices of county treasurer and auditor, for example, or a clerk of courts and recorder could be combined.

“There will be a lively debate around these bills,” said Larry Long, executive director of the commissioners association. He acknowledged that his briefing to representatives from the county officeholder groups got a frosty reception.

“They are not happy about it,” he said.

Long said the association believes the changes would save money. By giving counties the option to merge offices, he said, they could eliminate some duplicative costs, such as having two human resources or information technology departments.

But each county would have to decide what makes the best sense, said Long. “Bigger is not always better,” he said. “This is an empowerment tool for local government to see if there are cost savings.”

The bills are expected to be introduced in the Ohio House in the coming weeks. From there, they will likely be assigned to committees and debated and possibly amended. If they make it out of committee, the bills need to clear the full House before being sent to the Ohio Senate for consideration.

Greene County Treasurer Dick Gould said the alternative government proposal lacks the checks and balances needed for good government. Each day, county treasurers around Ohio tally balances in county accounts, while county auditors separately determine how much should be in the bank. The balances are compared.

“Any discrepancy is investigated,” Gould said. “What they are pushing eliminates some of these checks and balances.”

Gould, a member of the County Treasurers Association of Ohio’s legislation committee, said the group “vehemently opposes” the bill. He believes it has hidden costs that would exceed what counties spend now. For example, in addition to adding a county executive, the number of county commissioners could rise from the current three to as many as nine.

The public would have to vote on whether to adopt the changes. But a majority of the county commission — or as few as two members — could vote to put the issue on the ballot.

“I really feel that puts too much power in the hands of two people,” Montgomery County Auditor Karl Keith said. “Any government structure reform measure must have good controls in place. I don’t think we do that by stomping on a system that has served us well.”

Residents, too, could push the issue before voters by gathering petitions from 3 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.

Montgomery County Commissioner Deborah Lieberman, who is beginning her post as chairwoman of the county commissioners association, called the proposal a tool for some counties, but said Montgomery County may not be one of them.

“If it’s not going to lower taxes or create more efficiency, why bother?” Lieberman said. “I’m not sure it’s the model we would want to go for.”

She said she supports both bills because neither mandates changes.

Montgomery County Commissioner Dan Foley, who spent a year on a statewide local government reform commission, pledged during his 2010 re-election campaign to lead an effort to place a regional consolidation issue before voters during his four-year term. Thus far, Foley’s conversations with community leaders on the topic have remained behind closed doors.

Foley, who served as Montgomery County Clerk of Courts for six years, said he wishes the alternative government bill would go even further. “Right now, we don’t have enough flexibility in state law to structure the kind of government in 2012 that we need to be competitive,” Foley said. “If a city and county wanted to merge, they could get sued, because the law doesn’t allow that.”

Alan Anderson, vice president of the Greene County Commission, said the current government structure works well there, but he’s not opposed to a change that would give other counties flexibility.

But Anderson thinks the bill has some drawbacks.

“If you split up the tasks, somebody still has to do the work,” he said. “If you’re not saving money, change for change’s sake isn’t necessarily a good idea.”