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.

As we fought with server issues, I missed the chance to note that on December 23 we passed the one year anniversary of the library lawsuit being filed in Common Pleas Court.

So much had to come together for that whole thing to work, including:

• The outrage of citizens all over the city at the announced closures;
• The botched and ever changing rationales of the administration;
• People organizing all over the city;
• And finally, seven brave women and AFSCME signing on to a lawsuit, joined a day later by Councilman Green.

I sat in the Courtroom as the hearing concluded; it was incredibly tense. As Judge Fox started making her ruling, it was really not clear who was about to win. Then, amidst a Hollywood like mix of murmuring, buzz and then loud applause, she said something like this:

The decision to close these eleven branch libraries is more than a response to a financial crisis; it changes the very foundation of our City. Two of the libraries scheduled to close, Haddinton and Holmesburg, will result in a reversion of the property back to the original grantor because of deed restrictions. No one questions the economic crisis which has rocked both the City and the Nation. However, we are a Nation of hope. A "crisis" evokes something temporary. Defendants argued there were more than enough libraries in Philadelphia. "Philadelphia has more libraries than any other city in the country." Our library system is more than a century old yet in three short months an economic crisis results in permanently closing eleven branches. This court does not envy the Mayor and the tough decisions he has had to make in this financial crisis. Yet, as this court is bound to follow the law, so is the Mayor. The permanent closing of neighborhood branch libraries is changing the very structure of the Free Library of Philadelphia and not just responding to a "financial crisis."

Fast forward a year, and not all is well with the libraries, by any means. But, they have survived, poised to rebound at a time when budgets and tax revenues return to normal. And, one year later, I think the Mayor would agree that libraries- Libraries!- have become the third rail in Philadelphia politics.

Whatever you think about the importance of the Bureau of Revision of Taxes, there’s no question that what the city, and perhaps most importantly the Mayor, does with this mess of an agency is a test of leadership and vision that’s under the public – re: media – scrutiny.

The draft statements coming from the Mayor’s appointed task force aren’t entirely encouraging:

The 85-page report, by a task force of City Council staffers and officials in the Nutter administration, is not a ringing call to remake the BRT.

In fact, Council made sure that it wasn't. The leadership instructed the task force to offer no direct recommendation on how to fix the agency - only alternatives.

One of those possibilities - "Option A" - would make only modest changes, such as improved training for assessors.

Other options would leave the agency intact but allow the mayor and Council to pick the members; or split the BRT into two agencies, one to set values and the other to handle appeals.

"Option D" would wipe out the BRT and put assessments in the hands of city leaders or a new agency. The last three ideas would require approval by city voters, the task force noted.

Which means that significant action on the BRT won’t happen until the 2010 election cycle, way too far down the road.

Meanwhile, half the BRT workers sit on the School District of Philadelphia payroll. The District’s money for these positions runs out at the end of this month, and the question is what to do next.

It’s all budgets all the time with the news that a veto-proof agreement may have been crafted. The compromise however leaves a lot of areas hanging:

Education: The compromise blows a major hole in the education budget as reported by Dan Hardy, confirming rumors that have been swirling for months (edit: a bit of hyperbole there - rumors have been swirling for a few weeks, not months). The School District is expected to be at least $140 million short – a move that one District insider said months ago would be "the end of the world." Hardest hit are likely to be pre-school and help for students looking to return to school and get their diplomas. The SRC meanwhile has chosen to postpone its September meeting dates without explanation. Explaining to the public how you didn’t really have a Plan B is such a chore. Read more at the Public School Notebook.

PICA punts on Plan C: Speaking of a lack of plans, the city buys time when PICA declines to weigh in on Plan C, saving the Mayor an embarrassing rejection as one Councilman notes. But it does highlight a widespread lack of faith in the alternative the Mayor has submitted.

Look on the Bright Side: Now we can play poker to really class up those slots barns! Although it looks like neighborhood bars may not get their video poker, the state believes its second highest revenue generator – expanded gambling through table games – is still the magic bullet to plug holes. Sort of. Actually only briefly. $200 million this year and a 40% drop in revenues next year (casino industry estimates by the way, and we know how reliable those are). Meanwhile, with the political gambling contributions ban eliminated, it’s a virtual free for all for the casino industry to ensure table games are as individually profitable as they are likely.

In other news, the Inky puts another foot on the BRT’s keister with a series of stories on the new tax assessments. Patrick Kerkstra notes that it’s "business as usual" for one city block where some assessments tripled. Meanwhile the BRT follows incompetence with – what else? More incompetence!

Among the findings:

Hundreds of the new commercial numbers were thrown off by mistakes littering the BRT's property records, including incorrectly sized lots and buildings that don't exist. At Seventh and Arch Streets, for example, the BRT calculated a new value of $5.2 million on what the agency thought was a huge, 200-space parking lot. But there is no such lot, just a narrow walkway next to the Federal Detention Center.

Instead of trying to figure out a property's real worth, the BRT's assessors slapped the same percentage increases on thousands of parcels across the city. More than 500 would get the same 40 percent increase - properties as different as a $6 million shopping center on Castor Avenue and a long-empty hoagie shop in North Philadelphia.

More than 6,000 commercial properties - a quarter of the total - are missing entirely, left undone as the BRT rushed to send the AVI numbers to impatient city officials last spring.

Apparent glitches in the BRT's computer models produced some bizarre results. Parking lots in a drug-ravaged section of Frankford, for example, were valued at a steep $140 per square foot - more pricey than many lots in Center City.

The most telling line:

Mayor Nutter, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment.

And finally, Michael Smerconish, who when googling past columns of his, I came across the unfortunate nature of his Philly Mag profile. I do not advise.

Anyway, he takes on the Joe Wilson-immigrant reform-Obama health care controversy, even though not a one links logically to the another.

Now for the record, Smerconish actually published a column about his diversifying of America paranoia:

I know I'm not alone in my belief that today's immigrants - those here both legally and illegally - are not assimilating the way my forefathers did when they arrived.

And before I'm shouted down as a xenophobe, hear me out. My intent isn't to amplify the shrill debate surrounding illegal immigration. What I'm interested in is defending the tradition to which my grandparents adhered: the one that led them to a new name and a better life in this country.

I fear we are leaving it behind.

Leaving aside the philly.com comment stream, and they are particularly colorful whenever immigration is raised – Smerconish nevertheless raises sensible points about why the far right’s call to completely deny undocumented people from receiving health care is bad policy:

1. It would require the undoing of the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requiring care for anyone who visits an emergency room.
2. It would require doctors and caregivers to function as immigration agents first, and health care professionals second.
3. It wouldn’t keep with our national rep to deny health care to people who were gunshot victims, or giving birth, or in a car accident, or suffering from a communicable disease, say.
4. And it doesn’t help the fact that what health care professionals are more concerned about are insurance protections than verifying legal status.

Smerconish omits one other important reality, and that’s the fact that so many families in the U.S. are of mixed immigration status. Back in 1999, the Urban Institute reported that as many as one in ten American families had at least one family member who was undocumented. A more recent Pew study shows that 75% of the children of undocumented immigrants are U.S. citizens. So it kinda makes it complicated when you start trying to deny citizen kids health care check-ups for school when their parents don't have the right paperwork.

In the end, though, Obama’s health care reform bill is meant to address health insurance plans and medical coverage in general. It’s not meant to rewrite every single law that deals with health care. And although Smerconish raises some good points, it’s just plain misdirection to raise the 1986 law and try to hang it on the president’s neck.

On Tuesday, the Daily News ran a set of stories (1, 2) about the city's plans for transit-oriented development around Broad and Erie. Effectively, the city has decided that with Temple constantly building on Broad (especially Temple Hospital/Med School here), with the Erie station on the subway in constant use, with a number of bus lines, with Germantown Ave hitting the intersection, the neighborhoods surrounding the intersection can really be strengthened in a big way:

A plan scheduled to be released in the coming weeks calls for transit, commercial and housing redevelopment in an area that extends in a half-mile radius from the intersection.

The area stretches from 10th Street to 20th Street, and from Allegheny to Hunting Park avenues.

"We did a market study . . . and there is actually pretty good market demand for 10 new sit-down restaurants," said David Fecteau, community planner for North Philadelphia.

For me, an article like this, that actually details a smart, overarching plan for some neighborhoods in our city, really stood out. Why? Because notwithstanding the hugely important election of a progressive District Attorney, city and state politics and policies over the last 12 months have really... sucked.

About one year ago, as the Phillies and Obama were marching towards their fall heroics, the Mayor started cutting budgets, and rumblings started coming from library head Siobhan Reardon about her plans for cuts from the system she managed. Those rumblings soon morphed into the 'close libraries' plan. And so, the next two months were spent in a fierce battle, with the neighborhood forums and Mayoral intransigence. The library saga only ended well after with a miraculous, New Years Eve injunction from a courageous judge.

Then we had the budget forums and the tax hike kabuki dance with the Mayor and City Council, ending with the worst of all tax solutions- an increase in the sales tax, and an accounting trick for the pension plans. The sales tax plan was stupid from the beginning, relying on the GOP in Harrisburg, and has therefore been constantly delayed, been used as a vehicle to crush organized labor, and has been shadowed by doomsday announcement after doomsday announcement from the Mayor.

Forget whether the impending plan of doom is a charade or not (as Ben notes, the specific plan has to be, even if the overarching reality of a lack of money isn't). The important takeaway for me is that the guy the city pinned its hopes on has basically spent an entire year in total crisis mode. (And that is with labor negotiations that still seem likely to lead to a strike, with trash piling up and City Hall unstaffed.) Meanwhile, many of the top policy people on the Mayor's staff- Wendell Pritchett, Andy Altman, Marc Alan Hughes and more- have already left, leaving a lot of people to wonder what exactly is going on in City Hall.

Much of the above, or at least the circumstances that led to much of it, is not the Mayor's fault. He is the Mayor of a poor city during a huge economic downturn. Every single Mayor in this situation would be largely screwed. But, whether you think he has done well or whether he has failed, the bottom line is that the last year has appeared to be devoid of an overall, far-thinking vision for the future, and filled with images of shuttered libraries and rec centers, laid off policemen, and the court system grinding to a halt.

All of that is why reading the articles about something smart- transit oriented development in a really important neighborhood- was such a breath of fresh air. We have 6 more years of Michael Nutter as Mayor. Here is to hoping that they bring a lot more positive developments like the plans for Broad and Erie, and a lot less of what we have lived through for the past year.

Because you know, (effectively) ousted Commissioner Heidi Ramirez – who was the SRC’s first Latina member, was described as the SRC's "most qualified" member, had a doctorate in education, devoted her professional career to improving urban schools, and asked (gasp!) questions about needs, costs, budgets and performance assessments of programs during public meetings – really just didn’t cut it.

According to the Public School Notebook, this is the kind of Commissioner the state believes the SRC really needs:

1. Male
2. Attorney (Cozen O’Connor)
3. PA finance chair for McCain/Palin 2008
4. PA Chair Bush/Cheney 2000
5. former SEPTA board chair (and we know how pleasantly they’ve acted in a school financial crisis)
6. Education involvement: Two year stint as Chair of Business Leadership Organized for Catholic Schools, 1999-2001.

In a joint announcement with Sen. Pileggi, Gov. Rendell gave this reason for why David Girard-DiCarlo should sit on the District’s top oversight body:

"He is committed to making public education better."

At least someone can define a floor.

Was the Commission’s most vocal member forced out for asking too many questions?

Update 7 p.m.: The Notebook reports that Gov. Rendell has confirmed that he has received a name from Sen. Pileggi for an appointment to the SRC. The Gov. professed not to know the political affiliation of the individual.

Update 6:15 p.m.: With tears in her eyes, Heidi Ramirez announced her resignation from the SRC stating that her vision was now "inconsistent" with that of the District. After the announcement, Superintendent Arlene Ackerman notably waited to be the last one to stand for Dr. Ramirez' ovation and rolled her eyes before standing.

Sources inside and outside the School District have informed me that School Reform Commissioner Heidi Ramirez will announce her intention to resign from the SRC. The announcement is expected this afternoon when the SRC convenes.

The announcement follows months of Superintendent Arlene Ackerman’s public critiques and complaints of Dr. Ramirez’ inquiries into areas such as the budget and contracts. It also follows Gov. Rendell’s decision in the spring to put Ramirez’s re-nomination in limbo and open angling by Harrisburg legislators to get Republican representation on the SRC. One can only guess that Dr. Ramirez, whom Governor Rendell once praised as "the most qualified" member of the SRC for her education background, got no backing from state or city officials.

Which leads you to wonder: Was the Commission’s most vocal member – arguably its most expert and engaged member – forced out for asking too many questions and expecting a modicum of accountability from District leadership? If so, what does that mean for the future of our schools and $3 billion of public money. If asking questions isn’t the job of an oversight body, then what is?

Read the full story at the Philadelphia Public School Notebook.

Given the facts as we know them, the Philadelphia Eagles have almost no chance of succeeding in their argument that John Street made them a secret deal to get rid of the 8 million dollars they owe the city. Forget that John Street said he didn't make a deal. Hell, pretend that Mayor Street said he did make a deal. The Eagles still would have almost zero chance of winning a lawsuit. The city knows this. The Eagles, represented by expensive lawyers, have to know this, too. Which leads me ask, what is really going on?

Why do the Eagles have such a weak case? In Pennsylvania, if a municipality has a law that says a Mayor must get x and y approval for a contract, and the Mayor doesn't get that approval, the city is not bound by the contract.

For the non legal types out there are two types of authority that the Mayor could have had which would bind the city to a contract with the Eagles: actual authority and apparent authority.

Actual authority is pretty much how it sounds. The Mayor, through custom or law, has explicit authority to make deals on behalf of the city. In Philadelphia, this type of authority doesn't exist. Pursuant to the City Charter, all contracts signed by the Mayor must actually be approved by the Law Department and the Finance Department. There seems to be no dispute that these Departments didn’t sign off on these contracts. As such, under actual authority, the city will win.

The second possibility, which makes a lot more sense, is that the Mayor had apparent authority to bind the city. Apparent authority basically means that, although the Mayor didn't have actual authority, the city knew he would act in this way, the Eagles relied on Street's word, and the city didn't tell the Eagles he didn't have the authority. So, the city must abide by the actions he took. If Philadelphia were a corporation or a private entity, if you could get some people to admit that Street made the contract, there would be a case.

But in Pennsylvania, none of that really matters. Why? As the Third Circuit recently made clear in a case stemming from the Osage Ave neighbors' long stemming dispute with the city (the Move neighbors case), apparent authority doesn't exist for Pennsylvania municipalities when statutory requirements say otherwise. In other words, if the law of a city requires x and y for a contract, no matter whether you relied on the word of the Mayor or not, there is no contract.

The facts of the Move case are instructive for just how high a burden the Eagles have here. (The case is Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200 (3rd Cir. 2008)). As most people know, Move’s former neighbors on Osage have had a long standing dispute with the city. After their homes burned down, they and the city had an agreement that they got new homes, with something like a ten-year warranty. But the homes were made incredibly poorly, so years later, no one was very happy. As the ten years expired, and responding to ongoing complaints of the neighbors that the city didn't live up to its end of the deal, then outgoing Mayor Rendell said (in writing) that the city would continue to take responsibility for their homes. Mayor Street came in soon after, didn’t like that we were still pouring money into Osage Ave, and promptly ignored the deal.

What happened? The neighbors sued. And on that piece of the case at least, the neighbors lost. They lost despite the fact that there was actually written proof that Mayor Rendell made the deal, and despite the fact that the city was responsible for burning down their homes. (There could be a separate argument about whether there was consideration for the contract, but that was not raised by the Court.) The Court considered actual authority, apparent authority, and the fact that there was actually something in writing from the city, and still, they found no valid contract.

Now, compare that to the Eagles' claims. There is nothing in writing. Street says he never made a deal. Nutter says he hasn't seen a deal. The Law Department didn't approve a contract. Neither did the Finance Department. Do you think, if the neighbors of Osage Ave couldn't win under their own circumstances, the Eagles will under these? (For those interested, below the fold, I have copied the relevant part of the Third Circuit’s opinion, which cites a number of other PA cases, for anyone to check out.)

The Eagles’ case is very weak. Which leads me to wonder what the Eagles are really up to. Given that they have good lawyers who have to know Pennsylvania case law, is it possible that they simply want to be jerks? That they are pissed enough that they are going to trash the city in the process, like the whiny children we often suspect them to be? At this point, I can’t really think of any other reason. If so, then Jeff Lurie, who has received millions upon millions of dollars from a largely poor town, a debt which we still pay every single year, really needs to have his head examined.

YPP commenter Portia has noted that, whatever your take on the income stuff in Seth Williams’ case, Judge Tereshsko was still wrong, because of the holding in the case of my bff Greg Paulmier, which said you can amend your statement of financial interests. It is yet another indicator of just how ridiculous this decision was, and it played a big role in the oral arguments before the Commonwealth Court today.

On the income though, after some digging, I thought I would point out the following:

From candidate Michael Nutter’s expenditure reports, we see the following payments made in 2006 to... Michael Nutter. (Info on page 309 of a 389 PDF.)

1) $2939.17, 6/19/2006, Travel Expense.
2) $126.07, 9/28/2006, Reimbursement- Supplies

So, Mike Nutter, like many, many candidates, had thousands of dollars of ‘expenses’ that were reimbursed.

Guess what else we found? Michael Nutter’s Statement of Financial Interests (sorry it is upside down):

Nutter SFI 2007 (2)(3)

And, under sources of income, did Nutter list those reimbursements as expenses? Of course not.

In other words, as we await a ruling that I believe will be favorable to Seth (as does the Inquirer), it is worth remembering that Mike Nutter, someone who everyone would agree is smart and is generally into that whole campaign finance law, would have been kicked off the ballot had he been challenged.

I asked the Mayor's office to comment. They declined, citing that the case was ongoing.

Chris Satullo has written up a summary of the budget workshops, after compiling some of the data. His conclusions, which are a little more comprehensive than the ones I compiled, are still basically the same. And frankly, many of them make me feel very good about my neighbors.

* Citizens tended to oppose strongly anything they perceived would harm those services likely to be needed by the people who are must vulnerable in these perilous economic times. For example, human services, public health and housing services got tabbed as a No Way, No How item even more often than did Police or the Free Library.

* After taking cuts to things such as shelter beds and health centers off the table early, many groups decided later in the evening, however grudgingly, that they had to support significant tax hikes to demonstrate how serious they really were about protecting these services to the vulnerable.

* Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Everett Gillison told me he was impressed by how many groups showed interest in the idea of closing a city prison. Many citizens rallied to the notion that enough nonviolent offenders could be released (or alternatively sentenced in the first place) to free up space to bring back all the prisoners now housed, expensively, at suburban jails – or even to close one prison. Citizens uniformly did not want re-entry or job training services cut; they wanted fewer nonviolent offenders in jail. This idea was also considered strongly by a number of groups that ended up not voting for it.

* Support for wage tax increases was strikingly strong. Most of it came near the end of the evening, when people realized they had taken more points off the board than they had put up. This is when, for many citizens, the difficulty of the task of actually having to balance a budget in the real world really hit home.

* Sales tax increases also got a fair amount of the same kind of last-minute support. Hikes in parking and amusement taxes tended to be earlier slam dunks.

* Meanwhile, raising business taxes generated surprisingly (at least to me) little enthusiasm. These taxes were discussed only in a slim minority of groups. The notion that the gross receipts portion of the business privilege tax is unfair and unwieldy seems to have trickled down to the grass roots. A fair amount of grousing could be heard about suburban companies and banks in general not paying their proper share of the BPT.

In effect, the conclusion that most people come to is that rather than savaging our city or harming the most vulnerable, we should roll back wage tax cuts, something we have mentioned here. Doing so may involve a certification of some sort from PICA and from Rob Dubow, but given the 'unprecedented crisis,' it shouldn't be that hard to get.

On the prison issue, I too was surprised just how widespread the support is for reforming our justice system despite the fear and terror of crime in our city. In my group, I made my own impassioned plea, but was shot down because the option also implied that re-entry services would be cut or that prisoners would be even more over-crowded. In other words, it was that they didn't think we were being compassionate enough... The appetite for change there is real, and over the next month or so we are going to keep harping on it. A lot. It is commpassionate, smart, and now, completely neccesary.

Rather than a simple taxes v. services, Philadelphians had to make specific choices. And city services, compassion and pitching in won out. Chris has put up the data set here, and the Mayor will be responding on Radio Times next Tuesday. It should be quite interesting.

For those that missed it, on Friday, like a couple of modern day "I Dream of Jeannie's", Mayor Nutter and Controller Butkovitz nodded their heads, and made one-fifth of our deficit go away:

A plan to reduce the city's near-term pension costs and shift more of the multibillion-dollar burden to future taxpayers was unveiled yesterday by Mayor Nutter and City Controller Alan Butkovitz.

The proposal, projected to cut the city's pension payments by $200 million over the next five years, would help ease the city's budget crisis but would stretch out the debt until today's schoolchildren are in their 50s.

Among other measures, the city is seeking a change in state law that would provide up to 40 years to deal with the pension system's enormous unfunded liabilities - most recently estimated at a record $5.2 billion, after last year's Wall Street collapse.

OK, so, it is not that simple, and it would involve getting permission to change a state law. I don't pretend to know anything about how pensions funds particularly work. And the solution is somewhat reasonable on its face. But, I am struck by a couple of things. First, how, when you really want to, you can find ways to come up with cash. And second, that the Mayor and Controller are going to the State to ask them to change a law.

Once the City starts asking the State to change the law, they should start asking for a bunch of other things, too. How about a law that removes the exception that banks and insurance companies aren't taxed statewide? How about getting rid of our predatory lending preemption? And how about modifying the requirement that Philadelphia submit a five-year financial plan to the state, through PICA, to something more reasonable, like a three-year, or even two-year plan?

First, some quick background for those who don't know it: In response to an earlier financial crises, (way back in 1991, when I was more concerned with getting a new pair of jams, and wondering if Lenny Dykstra would ever recover from his post-bachelor party car accident), PICA was born, to serve as a State watchdog to look over our finances. And so, once a year, we have to submit to PICA a financial plan that shows we have balanced books for five years. (Because we project out finances for five years is one reason why the Mayor constantly refers to a 'billion dollar' deficit. In fact, most other governments would probably call it a 200 million dollar deficit, or whatever the exact yearly figure is.)

The silliness of a five-year budget plan can be seen by looking at past plans that PICA approved, for fiscal years 2008, 2007, 2006 and so on. (I am pretty sure that the one they certified 8 months ago, when anyone on the street could have told you that the economy was slipping, would be particularly funny.) There simply is no reasonable or accurate way for a municipal government to predict what incoming revenue will be five years out. A five-year plan has to make all kinds of assumptions, such as the length of a downturn, that really are just one big crap shoot.

Further, the five-year plan also prevents us from dealing with temporary problems... with temporary solutions. As an example, yes, it makes sense to structurally change government in some areas in response to this crisis. But, if we viewed this as a two-year problem, which it is much more likely to be, rather than a five-year problem, temporary solutions, like raising the wage tax by a quarter of one percent for a couple of years to keep trash picked up, libraries open, and cops on the street, become a lot more palatable and sensible. Instead, with a five-year plan we get a response to a deep, but temporary, budget crisis, with permanent 'solutions' that may savage Philadelphia's services.

So, I guess I am happy that a fifth of our deficit may go away with an accounting trick. But, while we are there, if we could get rid of the five-year plans, that would just be swell.

Back when City Council was in its duck and cover routine with the libraries- before the lawsuit was filed and was won- Mayor Nutter also announced that he was thinking about consolidating our outdated row offices. It would be a smart thing to do. Because just like it makes no sense to elect a coroner (which we used to do), it makes no sense to elect a Clerk of Quarter Sessions, City Commissioners or a Sheriff.

At the time of Nutter's announcement, City Council couldn't even be bothered to hold hearings on libraries. But what they could do was hold a hearing to lavish praise on an elected official who held one of those row offices:

Vivian Miller, Philadelphia's Clerk of Quarter Sessions since 1991, today said "It's really sad" that Mayor Nutter is calling for a review of "row offices" like hers, the Sheriff's Office, the Register of Wills and others. Citing the city's growing budget crisis, Nutter yesterday told the Daily News he wants to examine eliminating or consolidating those offices and having their functions absorbed by the rest of city government. Read the details here.

....

"We've been a team player," Miller said after testifying at a City Council hearing on the city's fiscal stability. "We did all that was necessary."

At the hearing, Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell voiced support for Miller's office. "We want it to survive and continue," she said. "We wanted to speak for the Clerk of Quarter Sessions and praise them for the work they do." Councilman Darrell Clarke added: "There will be significant discussions about what row offices will stay."

Blackwell to her credit did sign the lawsuit a few weeks later. However, it was quite a bizarre thing. Here we were closing libraries and pools with barely a whimper from Council, but they were taking time to stand up for, and lavish praise on, an elected Clerk of Quarter Sessions? (I would bet less than half of the members of the Philadelphia Bar even know what the office does. And the functions of the office would obviously continue. We simply wouldn't have an overpaid elected official do it.)

Anyway, I sure am glad that our Councilpeople are standing up for such a well run government office:

Frustrated by a city agency's handling of tens of millions of dollars in court fees, the president judge of Common Pleas Court has ordered it to surrender its bank accounts and cede some key functions to another department beginning today.

Citing severe financial problems in the office of Clerk of Quarter Sessions Vivian T. Miller, President Judge Pamela Pryor Dembe said the office must turn over its books to the probation department, which will take over fiscal operations.

Dembe said the office had botched its handling of key accounts, depriving the city of needed revenue at a time of fiscal crisis.

"I don't have time to be patient," said Dembe, who was elected president judge in November. "It's simply not acceptable, at a time when we're talking about closing libraries and rec centers, for the city not to have revenue to which it's due."

And do you know who defends Miller in the article? Her daughter, who just happens to be her top deputy. How do they get around civil service rules that would make that particular arrangment illegal in other parts of government? They don't really have to follow them. If this were a family business, or a private organization of some kind, that would be cool. But this is a struggling City Government, that is paying way too much for an office that doesn't even appear to work. (And, this has bizarre similarities to the family business that is the City Commissioners Office.)

We cannot afford this kind of stuff any longer. It is time for a change.

Last month, the Nutter administration submitted a $2.6 billion wish list to the Obama transition team. At the top of the money pile – ahead of new schools and a youth study center? The Market East/Foxwoods casino – coming in at a cool $167 million* (correction: $125 million).

Just because there’s no plan in place doesn’t stop the City from putting it forth. After all, here was Terry Gillen’s reason for including the Market East casino project:

"We just want to make sure the opportunity for funding doesn't go away just because the project's not ready to be defined," said Terry Gillen, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority and senior adviser to the mayor.

Well, it’s not just Philadelphians who aren’t sold on that kind of logic. Earlier this week, the national press, including the Washington Post and CNBC, took notice of this line item after GOP leaders flagged it as one of the top examples of a stimulus package that was pork barrel politics as usual:

Let's catch up:

First, Catherine Lucey reports that all 11 libraries scheduled to be shuttered are open today:

Well, PhillyClout just called all 11 branches and got through to librarians at every location who said that the libraries are operating on normal schedules today – and will continue to do so until they get word otherwise.

Common Pleas Judge Idee Fox ruled in favor of seven library patrons and three City Council members who sued Nutter last week, citing a 20-year-old ordinance requiring Council approval to close city buildings.

The city plans to appeal the judge’s ruling, but will wait until after a full written order from Fox, which is expected on Monday

As Catherine mentions, the City will appeal next week when they get the full ruling from Judge Fox. Michael Matza of the Inqy reported the same thing, and fleshed out Nutter's latest talking point, that the lawsuit has hurt the chance for the libraries to become 'knowledge centers.'

Beyond the ruling's impact on the balance of power between the city's executive and legislative branches, Nutter said yesterday, it hurts his efforts to get private funding to reopen some of the targeted branches as community based learning centers.

"This ruling runs the risk of significantly hampering our efforts to get the re-use plans in order," he said, "because it has now caused a chill in some of those discussions and created a tremendous amount of confusion with potential funders."

Among the options the administration is exploring is to have the funding channeled through nonprofit community-development corporations and other private sources.

Although few details have emerged about the idea to "repurpose" the targeted libraries as "knowledge centers," at least one proposal calls for the New Kensington Community Development Corporation, a nonprofit with offices on Frankford Ave., to take over the Fishtown Community Library as a "nascent model of the library of the future" under a long-term lease.

Let's deal with this piece by piece. First, the article mentions that NKCDC, a well regarded CDC, is going to run a "library of the future." Are they going to employ librarians? Do they have any expertise on running libraries?

Second, it goes unmentioned, but, who is most likely to be funding a library in Fishtown? Sugarhouse Casino, of course. Great.

Third, the mayor would have us believe that lawsuit is holding this all up, because he now has to get a vote from City Council. But the City Charter says that the city can only sell or lease city owned property with... approval of City Council. So the obstacle that has been put in front of him- a vote- is the same exact one that he already had. Surely he was planning on going to Council for a vote there, right?

Anyway, more great reporting on the issue from the Inquirer and Daily News:

Kia Gregory went to the Fumo branch in South Philly, and got reactions from patrons about the reprieve. (There are great photos, too.)

Jeff Shields on the ad-hoc coalition that sprouted up in defense of libraries. His basic thesis, that after Obama's election (and maybe Nutter's too), people expected more, and when they didn't get it they took that energy and organized, is a good one.

Jill Porter on the whole thing.

Happy new year, everybody.

This is how Mike Nutter ended his It's Our City interview with Dave Davies (around Minute 42 on the video):

People will have to decide. You know, do you want to be a populist, or do you want to be a leader? Do you just want to be talking? Or do you want to show strength and leadership under very difficult circumstances. Leadership requires you to make tough choices, not just run your mouth.

So, I think that were more than willing and open. We don't assume that we have all the ideas or all of the answers. As long as people want to engage in a dialogue that is legitimate about how you want to close massive holes...

First, the very first definition of populist that comes up is this:

A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

And, so, that would be a bad thing to be, for a big city Mayor? (Let's assume that he more means a demagogue, and move on.)

Second, Nutter is willing to assume that he doesn't have all the answers? So why do we have town hall meetings where the Administration is basically saying that the cuts are the cuts are the cuts. (And that, of course, is after after making those cuts in secret, after withholding the super-duper secret information that were theoretically used to make them.) Where does he actually ask people for their ideas, and where does he show he will consider them? Certainly not at town hall meetings.

This whole thing is beyond bizarre. And, really, if I hear the Office Space Routine one more time...

And, Oliver said, one of the administration's primary points is that the library system is too big and needs to be pruned.

...I am going to flip out. So really, they wanted to cut libraries all along? I guess I missed Candidate Nutter's plan to cut libraries during the Mayoral campaign?

From his campaign website, in fact, we get this:

THE FREE LIBRARY

In 2005, the City announced that twenty branch libraries would shift to half-day service and many head librarians would be laid-off. Library supporters protested the "reorganization plan." Councilman Nutter called for an investigation to evaluate the Library System and to find additional funding in order to restore this essential City service. After a five hour hearing, which was attended by a capacity crowd of students, library supporters and employees, restoring library funding became a critical issue during that year's budget discussions. City Council eventually rejected the budget cut, restored funding, and returned all branch libraries to full-day service with head librarians.

Is that just down the memory hole? Are we not supposed to remember?

I voted for Mike Nutter to become Mayor because I thought that while I would have some ideological differences with him, his desire for openness, transparency and citizen participation would provide enough buffer to make sure that, whether he liked it or not, he would be...

A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

Thus far, this has not really worked out like I had hoped.