It sounds like it could be a script for another bizarre Coen Brothers movie like ``Fargo'' or ``Raising Arizona'': The increasingly desperate efforts of the Suffolk County sheriff to find $5 million to pay off a legal judgment. It is as well a sadly illuminating tale of how pathetically weak county government has become.

The story is this. Between 1995 and 1999, more than 1,500 women in Boston were arrested, brought to jail and strip-searched. Men were not subject to the same treatment. Those stripped included a woman accused of illegally selling sausages on the street and another who was late returning a video game.

This being America, they sued and they won - big time. In November a federal judge awarded the women $10 million - $5 million from Boston (which had arrested them) and $5 million from Suffolk County (which jailed them).

The city paid up. The county has not and for a very simple reason: It doesn't have the money.

So, Sheriff Andrea Cabral went to the state, asking for help.

She was turned down flat. ``Our position is that the state was not named at all in the suit,'' said a representative for the governor.

So she went to the city. ``I don't know anything about what makes us responsible,'' came back the mayor's response.

Meanwhile, penalties have added another $200,000 and Cabral today finds herself in federal court, facing contempt proceedings. The judge is angry. The women's lawyer calls the whole thing ``appalling.''

But what is the sheriff supposed to do?

County governments have no taxing authority. Cabral's budget, which comes from the state, has been cut deeply and there's nothing to spare. Should she auction off the jail? Release the prisoners? Stand outside a 7-Eleven with a tin cup?

None of this is Cabral's fault, by the way. Once a prosecutor for the district attorney's office, then-Gov. Jane Swift appointed her to the job late last year. The lawsuit and other management and operational headaches were the legacy of her predecessor, Richard Rouse.

The ludicrous situation in which Cabral finds herself, however, is an example of a more deep-seated problem: Massachusetts has no regional governments. It has allowed its county governments to wither away and has put nothing decent in their place.

We really only have two levels of government. One is the state, with power essentially concentrated in the hands of three - two legislative leaders and the governor. The second is local. There are 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts. Each often competes against the others. And frequently the results of that competition can be ill-considered or even destructive, especially when it comes to decisions about transportation, housing, economic development and local taxes. The classic example? A town that permits a mall to be built on its border (in order to generate property taxes) that is reached only by traveling on roads running through an adjacent community.

With no regional governments, we have instead ad hoc authorities and commissions - such as the MBTA, the MDC, the MWRA and the Mass Pike - to address regional issues when they arise. They are a mess themselves: uncoordinated, quasi-independent fiefdoms, often with their own budgets and bonding authority, yet accountable to almost no one. (The only organization around that even pretends to try to address regional issues comprehensively, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, is essentially voluntary and powerless.)

It doesn't have to be this way. Other states, such as Maryland and Virginia, have robust county governments that act as a middle layer between localities and the state. And, unlike Massachusetts' various authorities, commissions and boards, elected regional governments must answer to voters.

These thoughts are prompted by a book, ``Governing Greater Boston,'' just published by a local think-tank, the Rappaport Institute (I sit on its board of advisers). A self-described ``Field Guide,'' it's not a partisan document arguing for one policy or another. Rather, it seeks to give the lay of the political land, describing how we govern ourselves and how that plays out in topics such as education, health care, immigration and housing.

This isn't the way we normally think of politics. For the most part, we focus on personalities, blaming our ills on the whipping boys of the moment (currently Mitt Romney, Thomas Finneran and Robert Travaglini). But the Rappaport Institute argues that the structure of government matters, sometimes more than the people who run it.

Stuff like this may often seem dry and overly wonkish - Andrea Cabral's fruitless quest for dollars notwithstanding. Yet for those who care about real political reform, including voters who made clear their anger in the most recent state elections, it's a must read.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.