Nobody said crafting joint services was easy.

But this is no reason to throw away the effort before its conclusion.

Yet this is what some Lewiston and Auburn city councilors want to do. In recent meetings, some councilors have called for disbanding the Lewiston-Auburn Citizen’s Commission on Joint Services.

Such sentiments were inevitable. The commission’s work has moved slowly since its start in 2006, hampered by staff losses and turnover of its membership and the city councilors. Only now has the commission regained its stride.

It’s focused on two fronts: consolidating “back office” systems and assessing departments of the cities. This is a departure from its initial scope, which was finding streamlining opportunities inside every municipal department.

The joint services commission has deviated from the beliefs of some city councilors, who are interested in including Androscoggin County in regional assessing. The commission has found plans for L-A alone to be superior.

Stopping joint services looks like an unhappy response to this opinion. This only illustrates the chronic problem with joint services in L-A: the lack of political will to put plans into action.

The previous iteration of joint services was L/A Together, which convened a decade ago. Councilors at that time accepted its recommendations with great fanfare and then let them languish. Little came from the work.

Today, at least, some councilors would take action. They would kill joint services outright.

This is premature.

Potential from joint services in L-A is greater than the political fortitude to see it through. Instead of criticizing the commission for not doing enough, councilors should examine what they want, and what they expect.

Joint services could save taxpayers $2.7 million. Compared to plans for combining dispatch, for example, this is a significant savings.

Surveys indicate L-A taxpayers support joint services, especially in behind-the-scenes departments. Streamlining assessing and computer systems parallel these community sentiments perfectly.

L-A’s image as a collaborative leader is also at stake. Other communities are proving able to share services with better results. Rumford, for example, is sharing a fire chief with Mexico, which is a progressive development.

And the L-A joint services effort was funded by the largest grant for municipal collaboration in Maine history.

Abandoning this work now would reject citizen sentiment, community reputation, state support and common sense. Plans to save $2.7 million – in any realm – should be attempted, not trashed, before being tried.

The real problem is not joint services, though, it’s with the city councils, which have authority over this effort. This is where trouble has always awaited joint services, and where opposition was expected to emerge.

So here it is. And, also as expected, councilors blame everybody else for why joint services haven’t worked, are not working and will not work. Yet the history of this effort, and the current pattern, shows this is not the case.

What is the case? Joint services could work, if given the chance.

And joint services will only go as far as the councils allow.