About 24 hours have passed since the massivee snow storm. 72 hours until the next one begins. I am not sure if I am surprised, or what, but in my neighborhood Philadelphia, and Philadelphia government did its just really, really well.

• On Friday, everyone parked, and stayed off the streets on Saturday.
• On Saturday, most people shoveled their sidewalks, and did so pretty quickly. And the plows were going pretty quickly. I walked to Center City on Saturday afternoon, and just about every sidewalk was clear, and every major street was plowed.
• Then, at some point yesterday, even the sidestreets (except for the very small ones) saw plows rolling down, too.

When I was a kid, and we got out thirty inches of snow, the city shut down for a week. Now? Take away the snow banks, and you would never know what happened. We are in a period of recession-driven, shrinking revenues. Paying the millions it took to clean up so thoroughly like this is not simply a mandatory response, because at times in the past, we have been told that a through clean up costs too much money. Instead, it was a conscious decision made by the Mayor, which will have ramifications on the bottom line of our budget.

But, this kind of thing is worth it for two reasons. First, on a very basic level, a week of snow-misery sucks, and, it is nice to not to have to deal with it. And second, and most important, it is good for people to see city government functioning, and functioning well.

There are going to be a lot of pitched battles over the next year- from the budget to union contracts- and it will force the city into another year of our municipal budgeting nightmare- seemingly without the inclusiveness that we saw the last time. As we think about cutting services, or better targeting some taxes (like the BRT change proposed by Stan, and studied by Councilwoman Quinones Sanchez and Green), or whatever else we consider, it is heartening to head into the process with a clear demonstration that in one of its most basic functions, the city’s government can perform really, really well.

Natural Gas Drillers are willing to do whatever they can to dispose of wastewater without getting shut down. They would love to have a way to dump it into the Philadelphia water supply. It's just a matter of time, in fact, until they do. This industry has only begun.

Right now, natural gas drillers are drilling away all over the state, generating more water than they know what to do with (and they really don't know what to do with it), water that's full of benzene, radium, hydrochloric acid, antibiotics and lots and lots of salt. All of this stuff kills fish and it isn't great to drink, either.

DEP has proposed a set of regulations that would lay out guidelines for the salt at least. It's the main problem, anyway, so that's not a bad start. The environmental community supports their salt guidelines (total dissolved solids, in the lingo). We support these guidelines, we just think they also need to deal with the other pollutants and make sure that drillers are accounting for all the water they take out of our rivers. If they don't account for it, that means that it's probably getting dumped untreated somewhere.

The industry is saying that the regs are too harsh. Please. They are fine, but the industry sees opportunity in Pennsylvania. We have the biggest, richest gas field, a governor who's easily swayed by industry and a Senate that's... I don't even want to say. So they have groused about every proposed requirement, because every bit of accountability they prevent is a dollar saved and that's more profit for the industry. Damn the torpedoes.

You can weigh in on these regs now. You have until Feb 12th. Go here. Remember, much of the water that gets dumped will eventually make its way into our water supply.

Other Marcellus News:

Stu Bykofsky wrote an editorial in the Daily News yesterday slamming calls for immigration reform and the current CIRASAP bill that was recently introduced in the House and has been signed on to by several local politicians. Stu’s essential argument: ‘This bill only helps people who are here “illegally;” if you want to fix the problem, just tell people to get to the back of the line.' This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, immigration reform doesn’t just help those who are here without documents—rather it creates order out of our immigration policy and treatment of immigrants that will help all Americans. Second, there is no line to get on to if you are from a poor country.

Comprehensive immigration reform is absolutely necessary to continue to keep our country functioning. As things stand, we have 12+ million undocumented immigrants in this country. While our legal system generally applies equally to everyone regardless of immigration status (e.g. minimum wage laws, criminal laws), undocumented immigrants live in constant fear of deportation. This fear makes them scared to call the police when they have been the victim of a crime or when they are being exploited by an unscrupulous businessman forcing them to work for half-minimum wage. With such a huge population being exploited on a daily basis, the quality of living for all of us suffers—failure to call the police in the face of crime makes our communities less safe; failure to report unscrupulous employers lowers the wage floor for everyone.

Send them all home, you say? Stu does:

Second, the "path to citizenship" is unpopular, according to a new Zogby poll. Among executives, 59 percent support enforcement to encourage illegal immigrants to go home, 30 percent support conditional legalization; 67 percent of small-business owners support enforcement, and 22 percent approve of conditional legalization. And in union households, 58 percent support enforcement while 28 percent like conditional legalization.

But where does that leave our economy? Living in fear, working for less than the minimum wage, having no healthcare, and not understanding the language spoken in a country are not the kinds things you do unless it is out of necessity—don’t kid yourself and think that undocumented immigrants are here living high off the government. Undocumented immigrants are here to work and working they are. They help to make our economy run. They work in construction, building our houses; as migrant workers, growing our produce; and they open stores, contributing to the local economy. And remember, when you work, you pay taxes, regardless of your immigration status. According to the 2008 report on Social Security, undocumented immigrants (who will never collect social security), will close 15% of the fund’s long term deficit. In 2005, undocumented workers were contributing roughly $7 billion per year into the Social Security trust fund. Money that they will never get back. I’m not saying that we should keep people in a position where they pay in to the system and get nothing back; I’m merely trying to counter the all-too-often repeated argument that undocumented immigrants are here suckling the government teat and giving nothing back. Both parts of that argument are just plain untrue.

And of course, none of this is to speak of all of the things that this bill does for people who are here legally. Wage theft will be reduced, leading to higher wages for all workers; the economy will see a boost of $1.5 trillion; and people like my friend from an unnamed African country will be able to get a visa, who, after a Masters degree in Physics and several nursing degrees all from esteemed US institutions may have to leave the country despite 10 years studying here. All of these factors are very important to our economy, security, innovation, place in the world, and soul as a nation.

And what about this line that we keep hearing about? People are supposed to get back on the line, aren’t they? Even Newt Gingrich understands that there is no sensible line to get on. It is really hard to get a green card, especially if you are from a poor country. Most recently, for WORLDWIDE immigration to the US, we are statutorily capped at about 400,000 people per year. Total. That includes family members, people coming for a specific job, people in the green card lottery, etc… In 2006, it was estimated that somewhere around 1 million people per year were entering the US without authorization. That means that unauthorized entries are more than double the number of visas available each year. That smells like a problem—our numbers should meet the demand from businesses and workers.

Finally, a few parting words:

• Stu assumes at the end of his article that everyone that he spoke with was undocumented. The only person he really documents is an Argentinean who said that he came here for 2 years, but then decided to stay. How do we know that he is not authorized to be here? Is it because he doesn’t speak English or isn’t white? Would we make the same assumption if a merry old Englishman told Stu the same story? Many Latinos are in this country and city as citizens; some of these people don’t speak any English. We cannot and should not assume that dark skin plus limited English ability = “illegal.” It isn’t right morally and it isn’t correct legally.
• Jen from the New Sanctuary Movement (whose work I fully support) says that being here without documentation is akin to jaywalking. With all due respect to Jen, I can’t buy this argument—it belittles the problem in a way that would make me think we shouldn’t take it seriously.
• Stu laments the fact that there would ever be an “amnesty” that would allow a path to citizenship for people who are here without documents. I ask Stu to Google “Tax Amnesty” and then re-ask the question as to whether it ever makes sense for the government to normalize relations with people who may have broken a law in the past. I think he may change his answer.

There’s a lot happening over at the School District that every council member -and state legislator - ought to know. So if you haven't already, pick up the latest issue of the Public School Notebook for more information:

1. First up, Renaissance Schools – yet another list of failing schools (this time there are 26 schools:14 identified Renaissance schools, 12 “alert” schools), yet another set of promises to parents and children skeptical about the District’s insistence that this time it will be different. Consider the families at Douglass Elementary which has had 7 principals in 7 years, or Dunbar Elementary which, if chosen a Renaissance school, will be on its third manager in 8 years. Or Stetson, which along with Dunbar, was the first wave of promised change through privatization. Stetson too is listed as a potential Renaissance school.

   What’s the problem with Renaissance? My main concern has been that the District is stuck on seeing transformation via management and contracts, rather than defining what substantive changes are going to happen in the life of a child. I’d like to know whether Renaissance schools are going to reduce class size, offer more literary specialists, provide home-school liaisons, improve school food and provide a full library and build science labs? Are they going to revamp discipline, provide real professional development, analyze and publish studies on their improvement, and invest in their teaching force rather than threaten them into compliance? A number of Renaissance Schools have significant English Language Learner populations. Are they going to provide a model bilingual program, diversify their hiring, create a multicultural curricula that engages students? Are they diversifying their curricula overall? Or is it really just a change of names at the top of the masthead, a “trust us, we’ll get some good folks in there with a track record” which is basically what parents have heard for a decade now.

   The Notebook has done an excellent job compiling a full summary of information on Renaissance. In addition, look for the latest issue of the Notebook which focuses exclusively on understanding school turnaround. Renaissance School meetings are happening all around the city. We need city and state leaders present to hear the frustration parents and communities are feeling and to bring more accountability to the District.

2. School Choice: Research for Action has a new study out on the expansion of choice options in the district, which has cost the district hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade – it’s been the District’s single most decisive change – yet has led to limited choice options for the majority of students seeking a way out of their neighborhood high schools.
   

   70 percent of District eighth graders participated in the application process to begin ninth grade in fall 2007. However when the dust settled, only 45% were enrolled at any District school to which they applied. In other words there are not enough “seats” in schools of choice for the number of students trying to choose. This means that in most cases high schools are selecting students rather than students choosing schools, robbing students and families of the agency that school choice is supposed to provide.

   That’s a pretty serious indictment that needs careful review and consideration. Since 2002, the District has nearly tripled the number of high school options, and through charters has created the second largest school district in the state. The investment of resources and personnel has been tremendous. Yet for high school, more than 50% of kids seeking out of their neighborhood school can’t find another seat. It’s also worth noting that as the investment has spread to create options, disinvestment in our neighborhood schools remains a problem. In Imagine 2014 it was hard to determine how much investment there was for the average comprehensive high school. There were counselors to be sure, which was a helpful boost, but how significantly was life going to be different for the average high school kid at say, Gratz or Bartram?

   RFA’s report issues a strong call for investment in neighborhood high schools as well as provides recommendations for improving the high school selection process. Worth the short 8-page read.

The Inquirer has a story on school violence in Philly public schools, other than South Philly:

Trouble was brewing at Fels High School last school year: Asian students were jumped and beaten. Disabled students were assaulted.

"It was scary," Eileen Coutts, then an assistant principal, said of the climate at Fels.

Worried that the unrest might escalate, Coutts invited members of community groups to the school. Administrators, parents, students, and activists came up with a list of interventions - class discussions, peer mediation, mentors, an "international welcome squad," cultural sensitivity training for staff, a buddy system for new students.

The school, despite lots of problems, has made progress. In the fall, overall crime, including assaults, was down 40 percent from the same period a year earlier.

I'd encourage everyone to read the whole article. While I am sure that the schools featured in the article- Fels, Furness and Bartram- are far from perfect (and Furness and Fels are, in fact, still on the persistently dangerous list), there is a lot to be learned from the contrast of the principals in those schools, versus the actions of the principal of South Philly.

While academics still aren't where McAlister wants them to be, Bartram's climate is much calmer. This year, an African student, Makula Fofana, is senior class president.

"That never would have happened before," said McAlister, who handles racially or ethnically sensitive matters herself.

"As hard as it is and as hurtful as it can be sometimes," she said, "we as an administrative staff and as a school community refuse to ignore these problems."

The schools are far from perfect, and still are unacceptably violent. But they are improving. The point is an obvious one: When confronted with violence, especially violence along racial or ethnic lines, you work with students, you bring in experts to help, and you confront it head on.

Check out the article here.

I know that many readers of this blog knew, or knew of, Joaquin Rivera, the beloved musician, counselor and activist who passed away so tragically last year. So, I thought I would pass along this mural, newly painted inside Olney High School as a part of City Year's piece of the MLK Day of service.

City Year (for whom Louie U-A, the sometimes YPP poster, the designer of many of these murals, and tragically, the youngest brother of me and Alex, works) spent MLK Day putting up an amazing amount of murals at local Philly schools, including Olney, Birney and Finletter.

There are some other great ones, too, besides Mr. Rivera- from Rigoberta Menchu, to Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks. If interested, you can check out the rest of them here.

I think everyone on here knows where my political sympathies lie, in general, right? So hopefully I'll be given the benefit of the doubt when I say the following: NARAL is a pack of hypocrites and, while CBS has a boardroom full of candyasses, I'm marginally more on the network's side in this whole Superbowl pro-life ad brouhaha than I am on the side of the nation's chief pro-choice lobby. Don't know what I'm talking about? No worries. I'm not going to be watching the Superbowl either, but here you go. And this, too.

Focus on the Family has raised the money to run a pro-life ad featuring some pigskin tossing mouthbreather during the Superbowl. My reaction: yawn. But I'm alone in this. The annual media fubar that is the NFL championship wouldn't be complete without some ad getting cut and much of the political community going wiggy about it. The difference this year seems to be that the economy is crap and most commercial outfits can't afford the pricetag of an ad in the biggest television event of the year, so CBS seems to have lowered its standards for controversy.

The network has accepted the pro-life ad. I say: GOOD. As far as I'm concerned, there should only be two standards that networks apply to selling their ads: 1) is there still a spot left and 2) do you have the money. I think it's fantastic that issue ads are going up. Maybe some thinking will get done. I doubt it, but maybe. It's less offensive than the usual fare, more on that in a paragraph, tho.

Now, CBS had to complicate the issue (and make themselves candyasses, in my estimation) this year by rejecting an ad offered by a new gay men's dating site called MANCRUNCH. That's messed up. They should have accepted the ad just as they accepted the pro-life ad. In the past, our team has had its ads rejected (like the awesome PETA ad from last year -- okay, maybe you don't think PETA is your team, but it's my team, so whatever). That always infuriated me. Wussy, wussy, wussy. I get so sick of the perpetual terror of "offending" anyone. Good heavens, people, quit bowdlerizing our whole freaking life. If we're going to stand for something then somebody is going to stand against us. That's the story of history. It's fine. It's a much better story, in fact, than any silly Superbowl has ever been. Let it go. Let it happen.

Because do you know what really, really galls me about this whole conversation? The implicit assumption that there's nothing offensive about crassly commercial ads. Those are okay. "Buy this iPod -- you can get it in blue now!" "Buy this perfume -- it's by Britney!" A bunch of worthless stuff that no one needs -- driving the kind of buy, buy, buy mentality that put our country in such a bind, that drives the awful boom & bust cycle that puts people on the streets and shatters family: THAT'S okay. We don't even talk about that.

I am increasingly intrigued by the idea of term limits for City Council, brought to a head by Councilman Goode's bill.

I think that there are reasonable arguments to made against them, and that people can disagree, but, at this point, none of the reasons against them on the Philadelphia level are large enough for me to consider the idea anything but very good. Before addressing why I think they are good, let’s start by analyzing why they are potentially bad. I will take them one by one, mostly culled from people in the post below.

1) They are un-democratic, because they take away voter choice.

“When the people are limited in who they can choose to hold office, democracy is limited.”

The biggest problem with this argument is that we limit democratic choices all of the time. We have a representative democracy, which limits our choice, and within that representative democracy, we make all kinds of other choices. On the national level, that means only voting for US Citizens for President, voting age limits, etc. And, on the local and national level, that means term limits for the executive.

We do this all of the time. The question for me is not whether or not it checks some invisible box as less or more democratic, apparently defined as having the most choice possible, but if it furthers the function of a democratic government in our city. We can argue about the potential reward of these things, but, simply saying “it limits democracy” doesn’t make sense. Especially when this would be voted on by the electorate, and overwhelmingly approved.

2) They give more power to the Mayor, in a strong Mayor system, and lessen the power of city council to work together.

Maybe. How do we really know that? It is possible that Councilpeople less worried about getting on the Mayor’s bad side will be more likely to cross him or her? Our three newest Council people quickly formed a block together, and they have brought new ideas to a head even while they just began. And, if the library fight is an example, then the two Council people who most helped were new- Councilwoman Q-S and Councilman Green. In fact, Council's long term members were for the most part excruciatingly quiet on the issue.

3) They give more power to corporations, lobbyists and bureaucrats.

This is one of the most persuasive reasons to not have limits on a national level. Because while a Congressman might go home, oftentimes, his staff does not, and simply becomes new staff or new lobbyists. It feeds on a DC culture that gives a lot of power to corporations and lobbyists, and Washington-based bureaucrats, rather than representatives and staffers based in their home districts.

But, is that a danger in Philly? I don’t think so. The big money people here are the Comcasts of the world, the Chamber of Commerce and its affiliates, Unions and Law Firms. Much of that will not change. The scale of money in our political system is much, much smaller, and focuses largely on keeping incumbents in office (like developers paying large donations to their district council people, who have to sign off on everything).

And, more simply put, we all live here. People will take office with staffers with whom they are comfortable. It won’t be about choosing staff willing to move across statelines to live in DC; it will be about finding staff who are comfortable taking the subway to work.

4) Nothing will change.

Even if we term limit the incumbents, until we have deeper reforms, their replacement aren't going to be cut from a different mold.

Maybe. Even if true, that is not necessarily a bad thing; more a sad reality. But, I am not sure it is true. Open seats lead to more competition, and I think, would lead to more insurgents getting elected. That is just a personal opinion, but, its not exactly a stretch to say that part of the reason Curtis Jones and Maria Q-S won is that they were running in essentially open seats.

5) The lame duck problem

Do we really want the odious problem of political lame ducks invading the legislative level -- people in government who no longer feel the pull of the ballot box in their decision-making, and who are thus less likely to listen to the electorate?

Again, I don’t know how you prove this. Isn’t also likely that if people are dependent on campaign contributions, they will be less likely to do things based on those contributions when they no longer need them?

As for a revolving door between the private sector, which I do think is a legit concern, what about some sort of additional law that, like that which the White House talks about, which would make you wait a few years before you can work for a company lobbying Council, or something like that?

But, again:

Experience bears out that lame ducks listen to the electorate less, even less, in my opinion, than do long-term incumbents.

… that might be true. But, I haven’t really seen concrete evidence of that. I’m not saying it might not be true, but, I really don’t know how you quantify lame-duck versus entrenched incumbent.

6) No more “Lions of the Council,” like David Cohen.

That is a concern. But, for every great Councilperson who stays, there are many who should not. And, in any case, David Cohen left City Council and then returned. Here too, someone could do that, with a one-term break. I don’t think it is really that terrible of a concern, when someone could potentially serve on City Council for 24 out of 28 years.

Anyway, that is my take. The negative arguments just don't feel that strong to me.

City Councilman At-Large W. Wilson Goode, Jr., primary sponsor of the City’s first campaign finance law, introduced charter change legislation that would limit the amount of successive terms that can be served as a member of Philadelphia City Council.

The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter would be amended to provide that members of City Council shall be limited to three successive four-year terms, or one succeeding four-year term if elected in 2011.

Councilman Goode said, “The odds of being employed as a legislator in the United States are 1 in 2091.”

Last week, Patrick Murphy was one of ten Democrats in Congress to sign onto an anti-immigrant resolution which, among other things, states:

". . . any immigration reform proposal adopted by Congress should not legalize, grant amnesty for, or confer any other legal status condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United
States of any individual."

I’ve admired Congressman Murphy’s fight for quality health care reform, his stand on the hopefully soon-to-be-defunct “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy and a general can-do attitude of a younger member of Congress. On his website, he even lists immigration as a constituent service, which I initially thought was encouraging and an indication that the issue was an important one for him.

In 2006, Patrick Murphy ran on a platform that notably opposed legalization, so some might argue that the guy is the type that sticks to his guns. On the other hand, things have changed since 2006 when anti-immigrant rhetoric was reaching its peak. I had hoped he wouldn't be the kind of guy Stephen Colbert described as believing "the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."

Polls show a significant majority of Americans support immigration reform that includes some form of legalization. Political candidates who seek to run on primarily anti-immigrant rhetoric largely fail to win office.

I cannot fathom why anyone who’s young, progressive and looking for a bright political future – especially because he represents Philadelphia and Bucks and Montgomery counties – thinks it’s advantageous to sign onto a resolution that’s not only dopey (invoking "peace, prosperity, liberty and national security") but backwards socially and politically.

For one thing, if the Congressman opposes legalization, what exactly is his solution for the millions of immigrants who are here and the tens of thousands of immigrants in and around the Philadelphia area? mass deportation? indefinite detention? A notice that says: Please go away?

Once again, it's time to raise the minimum wage. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts has shown the danger to the Democratic Party of appearing to just tackle long-term projects.
We also must deal with things that produce tangible benefits to long-suffering citizens in the short run.

Since 1987, I have been quite focused on minimum wages in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. As active member of the National Conference of State Legislatures, I am proud to have played an important role in making state minimum wages the focus of national campaigns for the first time in our nation's history. Since 1987, when I first began my efforts to raise Pennsylvania's mininum wage, Pennsylvania's minimum wage has risen from $3.35 and hour to $7.25 an hour, up 116%.

The Pennsylvania legislature last voted to raise the minimum wage in 2006. It is time to revisit the issue. The District of Columbia and other states--Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, for instance-- have minimum wages of $8.25. The minimum wage in Oregon is $8.40. The minimum wage in Washington State is $8.55.

It's time for us to raise the minimum wage in Pennsylvania at least up to the East Coast high of $8.25. If the votes were there, I would favor doing more. Since the passage of our last minimum wage legislation, I introduced legislation raising the minimum wage to $9.35 over time, but, as inflation has declined and no state has approached my number (although Ted Kennedy introduced a bill for $9.50), I am willing to scale down my goal in order to get something actually enacted. A bill is a piece of paper; a law has tangible relevance to the lives of many.

Soundings I made earlier to today with labor and relevant legislators have convinced me that a minimum wage of least $8.25 is a reasonable goal as a part of the solution for the economic distress of 2010. The minimum wage was originally promoted as a federal policy during the Great Depression: when many people are out of work, those who are working have more responsibilities. I would welcome the support of civic activists here and elsewhere.

I’ve had a chance to hear Joe Hoeffel a few times, most substantively at a Philly for Change meet up. And although I still have a lot more to learn, there’s probably nothing more important right now than figuring out what it is to know before the gubernatorial election in, oh, say, 10 months. So here’s a chance to get to know Joe better.

Joe Hoeffel Statewide Campaign Kick-off
Tues., Jan 26th
5-7 p.m.
PA Convention Center, 1200 Arch Street
RSVP: info @joehoeffel2010.com or 215-302-2010

There are two great coalitions around that are working on City and State budget issues, both with much the same name. There's CES which stands simply for the Coalition for Essential Services. That group is focused on City budget issues. Then there's SEPCES which is the Southeast PA Coalition for Essential Services. Both of these were somewhat successful last year in preventing the worst of proposed City and State budget cuts from being implemented. But, as most of you know, substantial cuts were still made. More State budget cuts were made just a week or so ago by Governor Rendell.

The battle is about to stop even deeper cuts in an environment of shrinking revenue. Here are two ideas for improving how those of us involved with the coalitions might improve our lobbying this year and into the future.

Last Monday, some 70,000 Philadelphians participated in the local day of service for Martin Luther King’s. The day- bigger in Philly than anywhere else- is great, because it honors Dr. King by putting people to work in their communities. Of course, in modern times, Dr. King has not only become lionized, but Disney-fied. The” I Have a Dream” speech is now a speech for all people and all political views, including those who have goals directly opposite to King. Are you in pursuit of economic justice? Dr. King is for you! Are you against affirmative action, and school desegregation. Dr. King is for you?

The un-Disneyfied reality is that Dr. King’s last years were pretty rough, as he confronted both the Vietnam War, and general economic oppression. Those battles, he knew, were (and still are) a lot harder to fight than simple de jure segregation. And, those same entrenched issues, including war and the economic devastation of so many neighborhoods and towns in our country, remain.

Today, deprivation still reigns in much of our city and country. In some neighborhoods, unemployment can reach thirty percent or higher. Wait times to see doctors at City Health Centers only increase. Our public schools perform at failing levels. And the statistics for incarceration for communities of color are stunning:

The Department of Justice estimates that the lifetime chance of a Black male going to prison is 32.6%. The lifetime chance for an Hispanic male is 17.2%. By contrast the respective rate for White males is 5.9%.

The rate of incarceration in state prisons and local jails is higher for Blacks than Whites in every single state.

Making matters worse is the reality of what happens on the ground once someone gets a criminal record. In the information age, the vast majority of employers run background checks, and if they see a criminal record, regardless of whether it is has anything to do with the job, regardless of whether the record is a future indicator of anything, they simply turn down the applicant. Forget education. Forget jobs skills. If you have a criminal record, a large, large number of employers simply will not hire you. It is a scarlet letter for life, and it is carried around by a stunning amount of our fellow citizens.

In response to these realities, and the disproportionate effect this has on communities of color, the federal body for anti-discrimination matters- the EEOC- issued a policy statement, which states that turning away job applicants because of a blanket policy about criminal records is “unlawful under Title VII in the absence of a justifying business necessity.” In other words, you cannot simply say “we will not hire people with criminal records,” because to do so has a disproportionate impact on communities of color, who are disproportionately incarcerated.

While that federal policy is good- the reality is that most of the anti-discrimination employment issues in Philly and Pennsylvania do not go through the EEOC. Instead, they go through our state anti-discrimination body, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). So, doing its part, the PHRC has released a proposed policy guidance (still available for comment) that will deal with this all head on.

In effect, the PHRC is proposing that if you simply use criminal records to turn people away, without a bonafide reason for using that blanket policy, you will be presumed to be carrying out a policy that has a disparate impact on communities of color. In the world of discrimination law, an employer could still then beat that presumption, but, the burden would be on the employer, not on the person turned away for the job. This is hugely important stuff, because it would mean that instead of using that scarlet letter to shut off avenues to jobs for such a big part of our population, they would have to really consider whether such a broad brush policy is sensible. It would, without question, curtail the use of those internet background checks (which are often wrong) as a first step screening tool.

People dealing with criminal records is one of the bigger civil rights issues of our generation. The fact is that if you are born with a certain skin color, you are far more likely to go to jail. (And get a poor education.) And that record, and everything that comes with it, has become an impossible barrier for far too many people. Mayor Nutter understood this when he created an Office of Re-entry. I know Seth Williams knows this, given everything he has campaigned on. But, when employers have blanket exclusions on hiring, and that exclusion hits on such large parts of our population, they are swimming against the tide. That is why I think it is so important that the PHRC is proposing to do its part too.

We all have to take responsibility for the deprivation, the discrimination, the poor education and the incarceration that falls so heavily on certain segments of our population. This is one hugely important step.

While I have concerns with the recent Inquirer series on the city's criminal court system, there are certainly problems with that system, and the series certainly drew attention.

Since it went to press, state Supreme Court justice Ron Castille finally took the step many of us were waiting for: he is stripping all significant responsibilities from the Clerk of Quarter Sessions and handing them over to the courts. The elected position and accompanying salaries will still exist for now, but that office will functionally no longer be administering the bail system.

Also, Arlen Specter convened Senate subcommittee hearings to examine many of the issues raised by the Inquirer. Seth Williams, our new DA, testified at those hearings. Seth also focused on problems with the bail system. He emphasized need for not harsh punishment, but sure punishment. This is key. The issue is not the dramatic $1 billion plus figure the newspapers have trumpeted, since much of that money is surely uncollectible. It's the need for more resources to be devoted to bail enforcement. This will take detectives, though Specter also noted that the city could start by simply registering fugitives in an existing national database.

(However, as it risks continuing the blood from a stone mistake, I hope Seth's comment about the possibility of going after bail scofflaws' family members stays on the drawing board.)

Joe Sestak, running against Specter in the upcoming primary, also put forward a plan to help cities deal with the long-term fugitive problem:

Also in response to the newspaper's work, U.S. Rep Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), running against Specter in the Democratic primary, called for a nationwide study on how to reform bail. He said that under his proposal, Philadelphia could be selected as a place to test the best new approaches.

Specter said he would urge his colleagues in the Senate to revive a proposal to channel federal money to cities to help stem the tide of fugitives.

The hearings also raised the private versus public bail question, a subtext to a lot of the newspaper coverage. Many are agitating to open the doors to private bail providers again, though Philadelphia abandoned that practice in the face of abusive practices. Specter has invited research into the private bail option, though initially seemed opposed to it.

However, as we've seen, any attempts to increase the stringency of the bail system based on increasing dollar amounts of bail runs the risk of just swelling the city prison population with poor, pre-trial detainees who simply have no way to get even a small amount of money together. Any reform of the bail system should focus not on raw dollar amounts, but on means tests and refining how we evaluate risk of flight, coupled with stricter oversight and enforcement. This must include supervised alternatives to incarceration for those who can't translate their commitment to show up for court into a monetary payment.

Yesterday NPR's 'All Things Considered' opened a chilling three-part series on the half million Americans sitting in jail--not because they've been convicted of any crime--but because they can't afford bail, sometimes as little as $50 (the subject of the story, when told, 'that's not a lot of money,' says, 'it is to me. To me it's like a million dollars.'). Everyone concerned with plans for Philadelphia's system should listen.