- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
City Council Slows Down Effort for a Bulked Up Inspector General
Submitted by Dan U-A on Wed, 02/20/2008 - 9:21am.
Yesterday, City Council balked at the Mayor's proposal to beef up the Inspector General's office. The proposal would, among other things:
- Give the IG office its own budget
- Appoint the IG for five years, and make it really hard to remove them (only with cause, and a full hearing as to why)
- Create a two-year cooling off period, where the IG couldn't run for office
- And... let the IG investigate elected officials
One of those things probably annoyed some members of Council more than others...
They wanted to know why the city controller or district attorney could not do the same thing with the $1 million now budgeted annually for Kurland's office.
Kurland, a former assistant U.S. attorney who made a living prosecuting corruption in the city, told them that the status quo has not been able to stem corruption.
"For the past 24 years, we've had all these agencies, and we continue to have these problems," Kurland said.
Still, she could not satisfy committee members as to the different job descriptions of each of the city's watchdogs, and Greenlee held the bill.
Considering it was Councilpeople like Goode, Green and Greenlee who had questions about the office, we can be a little more charitable that the questions are sincere.
But... and this is a big but:
- Rick Mariano is in jail for corruption.
- Donna Miller has had two different staff members go to jail for corruption.
- The City treasurer is in prison for corruption.
- And, of course, while not under the jurisdiction of the IG, one of the most powerful politicians in the City- Vince Fumo- awaits a trial after a 140 count indictment for effectively stealing the public's money.
How many of those cases were brought by Lynne Abraham and the DA's Office? The answer, of course, is zero. It seems a little goofy to say that the DA- a position who will rely on Councilmembers, ward leaders and party officials every four years- will actually go after corruption. It is not like this is all theorizing: we know it to be the case.
Additionally, as far as I understand, without its own budget, if the IG needs 10 boxes of new pencils, it has to go hat-in-hand to the Mayor's office, to get approval. Think constantly needing to check in with the Mayor and his Chief of Staff may effect the ability to investigate the Mayor or his friends?
The last election made very clear that Philadelphians were ready for a government that no longer is perceived as corrupt, and that they could believe in. Ignoring the IG's office, and pretending that the Philly DA will handle things, is ridiculous. We need a bulked up IG, and we need it ASAP.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Exactly the right point, Dan
Lynn Abraham has defended her failure to investigate political corruption in the city on the grounds that doing so would require her to investigate the very people who are responsible for her securing the Democratic nomination for DA. Whatever you think of this excuse for inaction--I don't really think that this is the kind of "conflict of interest" that legitimzes inaction--her claim shows precisely why we need an Inspector General who is insulated from political control by the Mayor and Council and who agrees to take a step back from politics.
That is not to say that an Inspector General cannot do a good job if he is planning to run for office. Seth Williams did a very good job. But he is also a very special person. In general, the Mayor's proposals make good sense.
The key concern of Council, of course, is that under Mayor Nutter's proposal, the Inspector General will be empowered to investigate Council. Council members are, as they typically do, protecting themselves.
I'm particulalry disappointed but not very surprised by Bill Greenlee. Of course, as I recall, some of us pointed out last spring that while we expected Bill to be supportive of a progressive social justice agenda, expecting him to be a political reformer--as the ADA members did--was a triumph of personal relations over political sense.
Seth's last volley
Let's not forget, too, about the investigation into spending in the Curtis Jones campaign. Call me cynical, but I imagine very few council members want an empowered IG poking around 1) elections and 2) the symbiotic relationship between elected officials, government agencies and nonprofits. Mariano selling his votes is one thing, but this is something very different, and as Marc notes, council has a strong interest in protecting themselves.
Corrupt and Content....NOT
Shortly after my appointment as Inspector General in the fall of 2005 I quickly realized that if the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was going to more effectivel investigate municipal corruption the office needed more independence. Dan is correct, their are inherent conflicts when an office responsible for conducting thorough and fair investigations must seek aproval for purchase orders for paper and toner from a person that he or she may be investigating.
The Inspector General needs more independence. This can be accomplished in many ways, and as Inspector General I spoke with every member of council and explained the advantages. Eventually Councilwoman Campbell introduced the legislation and Councilman Goode became a primary champion for the passage of the ordinance that would call for a charter change.
In my opinion the Inspector General should be appointed by the mayor for a fixed term, and should only be removed from office for cause. This would protect the Inspector General from being removed from office for conducting investigations that the political structure may not approve of. The Inspector General also needs to have the ability to control all hiring and firing in the office. The Inspector General also needs the ability to control the internal budget of the office. The mayor and council should, after public debate set the budget. After the budget is approved by the elected branches of government with their oversight and the checks and balances of the City Controller's Office the I.G. should be able to purchase the materials, and supplies he or she sees fit.
I now support Mayor Nutter's efforts to restructure the OIG into a more efficient and more effective corruption fighting tool. As I learned, it will be a bumpy ride. Not everyone in the city of brotherly love wants corruption identified, investigated or prevented.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Seth
At first this turned my stomach
But the other argument is that it doesn't make sense to have a mayor-appointed IG that can go after members of council. That seems like a conflict of interest. Should the council have a prosecutor who can investigate the mayor?
I agree with making the IG more independent but I think the best scenario would be to have the IG directly elected by the voters.
The Parking Authority is one reason why not to
I guess if I thought in Philadelphia that elections like the IG would generate enough interest (like the Mayor's race) that voters would influence and determine choices, I might be more optimistic in your scenario. But I think only a few elections in the city are even somewhat protected from the political machinery.
In our dealings with the Parking Authority, it wasn't just the thought of negative repercussions that stopped political leaders from getting involved. The resulting financial compromise with the Parking Authority didn't benefit the District as much as it did the City. The City gained millions in the final Parking Authority settlement in December.
But that didn't motivate a single member of council or the city controller (who was directly charged to investigate the situation by the governor) to do a thing or say a peep around the issue. We met with the staff of only three state legislators. The controller said it would take a least a year to do a desk audit and his cursory audit revealed hardly a thing out of place.
So I am entirely skeptical of an elected individual. A powerful independent appointed prosecutor can be a dangerous thing (Kenneth Starr anyone?) but it's preferable to what Philly politics tends to generate.
Good Point
ACOUCH makes a good point, a mayoral appointee that investigates other branches of government could from a polisci standpoint appear unbalanced. The method that I proposed would have called for the mayor to nominate the Inspector General with the "advice and consent" of city council. This would address the checks and balances issue.
I also suggested that if the mayor wanted to remove the I.G. prior to the expiration of his or her fixed term that the mayor had to make such notice in writing and that the I.G. could request a public hearing before council at which time a two-thirds vote would be required to remove the I.G. from office.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Seth
Indictment Count
I believe the correct number of indictments is 141.
The original complaint has been amended a bunch of times though. The PDF file linked to the Inquirer indictment is not close to the actual version that will be used at the trial--which has its first hearing slated to begin just before the general election [wonderful timing, I must say... I hope the media juxtaposes his going in-out of Court with the election coverage].