We want to say the current fight between the city and county over an interlocal agreement on fire protection illustrates the need for consolidation of those governments except for one thing: If officials can’t agree on such a simple but important issue, how on earth would they agree on consolidation?

The very term implies communication and compromise. That hasn’t happened with the fire protection agreement.

Aldermen say they have been asking supervisors since April to sit down and discuss a number of issues &045; including the fire agreement, by which the city’s departments provide fire protection to county residents in exchange for a fee from the county.

Supervisors &045; who declined requests for a retreat and for a face-to-face meeting with the city &045; say the city knew all along how much the county would pay.

Without delving into the &uot;he said, she said&uot; of the situation, it seems the county avoided a face-to-face meeting that could have solved the issue fairly. The city, meanwhile, could have been more clear about how much money it needed from the beginning.

Now, let’s be logical. Both of these governments need what the other has: If the city doesn’t get the money, it has to cut expenses somehow, perhaps laying off firefighters. If the county doesn’t get fire protection, it would have to make hasty arrangements for a more extensive fire protection system. While we believe in our rural fire departments, they have not been carrying the load alone.

Yes, this is the perfect example of the need for consolidation of city and county government &045; or at the very least the start of a conversation about it.

But ladies and gentlemen of the boards, you have to be in the same room first.