City Council is going to wait for the next administration before taking on new city ethics laws, the AP reports. From the story:
Philadelphia City Council is putting off debate on new ethics reforms until 2008, after mayor-elect Michael Nutter takes office.
The political watchdog group Committee of 70 had authored four ethics proposals that deal with lobbyists, gifts to city workers, moonlighting, and nepotism.
The measures were scheduled to be argued on Tuesday, but the hearing is being delayed until Nutter and three new Council members are sworn in.
Director Zack Stalberg says The Committee of 70 is pushing the bills but asked for the delay because there is ``very little time (this year) to hold a hearing, amend the bills if necessary, and get them passed.'' He also thinks there is a greater chance of passage in the next council term.
Comments (8)
Only 3 new council members? Let us not jump the gun on the Oh/Kelly race.
Posted by Patricio | November 13, 2007 1:59 PM
I heard Oh speak Sunday to Jerry Mondesire. So things are still in a tight bunch. Geez this situation could go on for a minute.
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | November 13, 2007 3:49 PM
I think it's a mistake to wait on these bills. The bills that are good could pass now, with amendments proposed and additions to them in the new session.
It's a mockery on this council that they won't create a legacy of clean government right away after everything that has happened in Philly.
Why keep waiting for something that should have been done 10 years ago or more?
If it's the status quo in the federal government (it is), then why keep hemming and hawing?
Look at the projects that are getting held up because Council can't address the important things -- the WRA parcel is a disgusting blight creating mess because Council wants to have a pay to play inducing "height restriction" that only their special friends are exempt from.
"Gifts to city workers" are a huge problem here. Council tries to pretend they are innocently taking fruit baskets, but those gifts are cash, cars, investments, and access that is quid pro quo.
Council can't even get itself ready to face the new laws, so they are putting them off. Stalberg is wrong on this one. There is a good chance of passage of the basics in this term, and better chance of passing the more sophisticated ethics reform in this term.
For some in Council, let's face it -- it means the end of politics as they know it.
Let's not keep dancing around it.
Posted by good gov -- not a pipedream in philly | November 13, 2007 5:51 PM
Haven't we essentially been "holding hearings" on ethics reform since the bug was found?
Do we really want an environment that allows the Mariano, the Shamsud-din Ali, the overt third worldesque corruption of government process that you hardly see anymore even in a South American Dictatorship?
City contracts for cash? No bid contracts that have do nothing "minority" (but not anyone "disadvantaged") for the select few? Unequal property taxes for the friends of? Free property with no oversight for generous contributors? An RDA that is presided over by a treasurer of a political party?
All of this stuff is so deeply rooted that City Council can't even begin to imagine how to fundraise without it.
Tip: try the Nutter method. Honest government, get out of the way of job creation, allow the free market to work as much as it can, and what it can't cover, use competitive, efficient, checks and balances to do. Campaign finance and ethics reforms decrease excess expenditures, and allow lower taxes. You will have supporters beating a path to your city hall door.
There are members of council who are, for want of a better word, socialists. They want government to build housing, to "create" jobs, to hire constituents, and to be the private market.
Ethics reform would out all the weird practices that result from this monolithic government that gets income from the feds, the state, and won't collect property taxes from its own constituents.
You would have a government that would have to levy taxes objectively, and collect property taxes without regard to whose ward they are in. Why do you think properties are listed for foreclosure by political ward, and not zip code?
The whole role of City Council comes into question in the way they have done business their whole terms with ethics and campaign finance reform.
They have always used their councilmanic status (emphasis on manic) to confer favors, to interfere in other city agencies, from parking, to property taxes, to lien collection, to access.
It's their chief selling point to them. They campaign on it. They all do -- look at Singletary.
Look at Blackwell. They use their position to try to claim that "you have a family member" in city hall if you vote for me -- someone who will tamper with records, delay proceedings, gum up the works.
Anyone who says "let's wait to change this" is in on the fix.
Posted by Anonymous | November 13, 2007 6:06 PM
"Conflict of interest" in Philadelphia means "party platform."
Posted by Anonymous | November 13, 2007 6:07 PM
You either want to change it yesterday, or you worry that the dems will take a hit because it's so locally endemic. Look at Fumo's house. The BRT can't even bring itself to correct the assessment for fear they would have to correct the assessment of ALL the unequal assessments for the pals of.
They whole system is so corrupt, that there will probably have to be a contracting out of these functions to an open, competitive municipal taxation, finance, and collections business that can't be beholden.
Beholden as by nepotistic hiring, by favors exchanged. The BRT was set up to be tamper-proof, but look at it. The Dept. of Revenue is supposed to be acting only on objective criteria, but loot at it. It's been sabotaged to the point of nonfunctionality.
Proof? The city hasn't collected property taxes itself to the tune of $500 million to $700 million dollars!
What city operates like this? One that works primarily on quid pro quo. You give Vaughn some cash, and I see to it that your collection proceedings are delayed. Donna Reed Miller had Vaughn playing a dirty game. Which of the members of Council is going to stand up and make change happen -- those are the ones not on the take.
Posted by Anonymous | November 13, 2007 6:15 PM
Let's appoint Blackwell, Jonny Doc, David Auspitz and Borat to be the Ethics Ambassadors for Philadelphia.
Posted by Dimmer Switch | November 14, 2007 7:32 PM
Now that is a progressive and reform oriented suggestion! It is like hiring embezzlers to manage a bank.
Posted by A New Philadelphia | November 15, 2007 9:42 AM