In most consensus-building exercises, all members of the group are considered valuable and their opinions are respectfully solicited and considered, even if they advocate positions that eventually could be rejected. True leaders recognize that without equality in representation, respect, mutual acceptance and an open forum for the exchange of ideas, collaboration is doomed.

Such should be the blueprint for talks between members of the Polk County Board of Supervisors and Des Moines City Council as they look at areas where services can be shared and efficiencies can be gained. The brainstorming sessions should be seen as a step out of the mud flung at the failed proposal to merge the city and county governments, which was overwhelmingly rejected by voters in the Nov. 2 general election, but they’re not.

Though we may not be surprised by that, given the acrimonious and highly personal tone of the merger campaign, we are disappointed that the heralded new spirit of cooperation only exists among like-minded people. There’s been no attempt at reconciliation between the three City Council members who championed the merger and the four Board of Supervisors members who vehemently opposed it. Indeed, Council members Christine Hensley, Mike Kiernan and Chris Coleman weren’t invited to the table to help identify areas where the two governments can cooperate. The oversight was intentional – and, it appears, punitive. This exclusionary approach is a reflection not of leadership, but of the political game-playing and bickering that thwart progress.

It’s a foolish approach that only deepens the divisiveness between the two governments, and between two factions on the City Council itself. It’s failed leadership and, more subtly, an acknowledgement that elected officials are unwilling to rise above petty politics and individual differences and work together to make government smarter and more efficient. The discussion itself is limited when the players are limited, an approach that threatens to make the talks between the city and county no more successful than the merger vote.

The rift created with the merger vote can’t possibly be healed if only one group is invited to the leadership table. Only by bringing people advocating disparate positions together can their working relationships be strengthened and areas of disagreement if not resolved, at least acknowledged with respect.

Anything short of that isn’t leadership. It’s cronyism, one of the conditions backers of the failed merger proposal wished desperately to eliminate.