Ethics Agenda (The Next Mayor)

(ETA: U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, a potential candidate for mayor, has become the first candidate to commit to the reforms spelled out in the Committee of 70's Ethics Agenda, released today. Read 70's statement in this later post.)

The Committee of Seventy wants to know what it left out of its sweeping, almost 30-point Ethics Agenda.

By now, I hope you've read the document -- if not, take a detour and check it out. Everything from gifts to gerrymandering is touched upon in it. And Seventy has asked each of the Would-be Mayors for his official response: Will YOU commit to the ethical behavior outlined in the agenda?

We will be following their responses closely and posting them as they arrive.

But in the meantime, the Committee of 70 wants to know what you think. What has been left out? What's confusing? What is overly optimistic?

Obviously, the Committee of 70 is a partner in this project, and we did get a sneak peek at the agenda. However, we're not here to praise the document, but to decide if these kinds of commitments are what it will take to finally begin cleaning up a culture of corruption in this city.

You've voiced a desire for better government several times on this blog -- and it even showed up in our first poll of the mayor's race, last year, where 76 percent of those polled said they would be much more likely to support a candidate who had a plan to reduce government corruption.

So, your thoughts?

Comments (8)

sheth

Sounds like a good idea to me, but I can't see all of them agreeing to do this. It will be interesting to see how they respond. Brady may not even run if he thinks he would be held to such high standards in terms of campaigning.

Posted by sheth | January 3, 2007 10:27 AM

GOP :

A little bird has informed me that DA Lynne Abraham, met with the GOP's Mike Meheen last week for lunch. ???

Posted by GOP | January 3, 2007 11:15 AM

jgriffith Sr:

I commend the Committee for its attempts to stop the non-bid award of significant legal work. The problem is that the language chosen has as many ambiguities as the old law. Who determines qualification to do the work? Should minority status justify a lucrative award if the actual work may be done by a larger firm. Who determines what work justifies a non-bid classification as opposed to a bid process? With over 15,000 lawyers in the City and many large, well qualified firms who can say that they are not all well qualified. Therefore what will be the determinative factor? Contributions as usual? Political participation? It is a very difficult issue. Most judges and most other elected officials receive wide financial support from lawyers and law firms without which it would be very difficult to conduct a campaign. If you disqualify them for having made a contribution ,do you not hurt the entire elective process. Make the ethical standards more specific without penalizing the financial support given to candidates.

Posted by jgriffith Sr | January 3, 2007 3:22 PM

mayorwatcher:

How about truth in advertising.
We are going to be inundated with TV commercials that are either false or intentionally misleading. Could we get the candidates to agree not to run any ads that an independent board (like Seventy) finds to be false or misleading. Maybe we could even see legitimate debate about policy break out in the ad wars.

Posted by mayorwatcher | January 3, 2007 5:12 PM

Dave

Some good ideas. Here's another one:

- Require non-profits receiving city funding to submit comprehensive plans, with annual progress updates, on how they plan to use the funds. Make these plans, along with funding information, available to the public.

Posted by Dave | January 3, 2007 8:35 PM

Dan:

It seems unlikely that an election and government watchdog group would take city funding.

Plus as a non-profit, I think (though I could be wrong) all of Seventy's records, including the pay of its top 5 highest paid people is a matter of public record.

Posted by Dan | January 4, 2007 12:51 PM

I don't know about whether omitting the issue of non-profits benefits Seventy. However, I'm pretty sure that it makes the agenda much more palatable to somebody like Bob Brady (or his ally Carol Campbell, for that matter).

Posted by Dave | January 4, 2007 2:26 PM

To expand on my previous comment, different politicians benefit from different loopholes in Philadelphia. For instance 8th district councilwoman Donna Reed-Miller, who was willing to vote for Michael Nutter's pay-to-play reform bill once the rules regarding non-profits were removed, could very well sign on to this reform agenda. 3rd district Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, on the other hand, refused to vote for the same bill even after the modifications, which leads me to believe that she benefits from more than just the non-profit "pay-to-playing" and probably isn't likely to sign on to this particular ethics reform agenda.

In a pinch, politicians can often give themselves the appearance of reformers by supporting an ethics law that doesn't affect them, or does so minimally.

Posted by Dave | January 4, 2007 5:32 PM

Comments (8)

Post a comment