Any thoughts on the two ballot questions in Tuesday's election?
There's a yes/no question about whether to amend the Charter to separate the office of the Representative from the Commerce Department.
There's also a yes/no question about allowing city departments to hire 10 (rather than 2) deputy-level managers who'd be exempt from civil service tests and requirements, and also exempt these hires from rules requiring them to live in the city. AFSCME DC 47 says to vote "No" and the Inky says yes. I am inclined to go with the union on this one, because as they point out, we're talking about 500 potential hires which sounds like a lot of patronage to me, but I'm unsure about the first, and curious what others think.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Vote "yes" - but only if you like better government :)
Committee of Seventy, www.seventy.org, the non-partisan political watchdog organization, recommends "yes"on both questions. Read the questions, the plain-English statement provided by the Phila. Solicitor's Office, and 70's explanation for their recommendation here: Ballot questions & plain english.
My own thought: the second one's a clear "yes" for me; anything that's been criticized "for decades," makes little sense, and impedes good governance is a no-brainer for me. The first ballot question makes sense to me, since I'd like to see more out of the City Rep. - and the responsibilities of marketing the city, vs. overseeing commerce and access and shipping points like airports/ports/harbor do seem like functions that could usefully be separated into different offices.
I'm voting for both.
Commerce is well deserving of a separate deputy level position of its own. Philadelphia is still losing and/or stagnant in terms of job growth overall while the suburbs grow econommically. Jobs do a lot to help many of our city's social ills.
In terms of #2 to be clear,
I would point out that it specifically requires new hires for these deputy level to have move to the city 6 months after being hired.
http://seventy.org/hot-topics/-2007-election-information/ballot-question...
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
why?
You guys did not really explain why you are voting for #2. From Seventy's explanation:
So department heads can hire 2 deputies now outside of civil service regs, but the proposed change will allow for 10, regardless of the size of the department.
If you worked as a civil servant year after year, and did a good job, wouldn't it annoy you to have someone be hired over your head who has a political hook up generally? And to allow 10 per department seems like it could be a but much in smaller departments.
On the other hand, I can see the merits of bringing in your own management team and being able to circumvent those who oppose any kind of change or reform. That said, the cap on exempt deputies was likely a part of Dilworth-Clarke-era reforms and was probably crafted as a way to avoid the crazy patronage of the Republican machine of they had fought. So I wouldn't be so quick to throw out what was originally a good government reform.
It might make total sense to do, but it could be abused mightily depending on who the Mayor is.
P.S. Joe, your headline (Vote "yes" - but only if you like better government :)) is so Orwellian.
Vote Yes on #2
If this amendment passes it gives the Mayor greater hiring flexibility so that they can get a top-notch staff. Its hard for City Hall and its various departments to make changes if their staffing options are subject to limiting civil service requirements. And this does not eliminate those requirements (so length of service can still be rewarded), it simply expands new hires that are exempt from 2 exempt-hires to 10 exempt-hires.