It is something easy to promise during a campaign. And there are some facets of open government that are easy and palatable- like the Mayor putting his daily itinerary online. But, and I mean this without any sarcasm whatsoever- truly open government can be a real pain for those in power. That is true even for a new Mayor who I think genuinely believes in transparency and sunshine.
Mayor Nutter, who ran for office on a promise of making City Hall business more transparent, yesterday tried to have reporters removed from a budget briefing that he held for City Council.
A Nutter aide, joined by a police officer, insisted that the briefing was a private matter. Reporters, citing the state's Sunshine Act on public meetings, refused to leave.
After some debate, Nutter started the briefing by saying that the briefing could be private if Council didn't deliberate or make any decisions.
"I'm not going to waste anybody's time arguing about it," said Nutter, adding that he reserves the right in the future to hold private briefings.
Reporters remained for the 30-minute briefing.
The article summarizes the Sunshine Act pretty effectively, and I encourage you to read it. What they Mayor was trying to do was to get around the Act so that he and Council could negotiate on the budget, making any official meetings more formalities than anything else. This is a page straight out of the worst days of the SEPTA Board, where they would meet privately, decide to hike fares, then publicly come out and vote. It is unacceptable for a guy who campaigned the way Nutter did, with ambitious promises about how government would conduct its business.
I really hope those close to the Mayor will hold him accountable here, because his position- that he can meet in private as long as he gives a legalistic definition of "deliberations," is far from the best practices of open government that he promised. I don't think this means he is evil or doesn't think open government is a good thing. But, I do think it shows that certain promises are a lot easier to make when you aren't in power. And when you really have a couple things you would like to hash out with City Council without those damn reporters listening in, this is what you do.
Additionally, you can read between the lines a little and tell that the media present in the room felt bullied by the Mayor to leave (ie, the presence of the police officer, etc). So, to the City Hall press corp- from Patrick Kerkstra of the Inquirer, and Catherine Lucey and Chris Brennan of the Daily News, to Mike Dunn from KYW and Susan Phillips of WHYY (see her account at It's Our Money)- a big, big thank you comes from all of us who believe in both the importance of the media as a watchdog, and in open government generally.
Later today, we will have yet another official open records request for the City. In the meantime though, it is cool that members of the local media have the back of those who believe that sunshine is the biggest disinfectant.
What is wrong with this picture? There is a rental suitability law in Philly, that largely protects low-income people from slumlords. (The bill was pushed through by Rick Mariano, right before he resigned to go to prison, so that he could have a legitimate legacy before he left.) It was a nice gesture, and was passed over opposition from landlord groups.
However, now the Nutter administration has decided that amidst a lawsuit from landlord groups, it is not going to enforce the law, until those lobbying groups approve of changes to the bill. Fox, meet henhouse. Please lock the door on the way out, and don't choke on too many feathers.
Given what is actually in the bill, that there is even a mild controversy over this is pretty strange. Because what controversial things did the rental suitability law actually say?
That the landlord has completed all requirements from L and I, and has no violations. (Crazy!)
That the unit has working smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. (No!)
That the unit doesn’t have problems- like lead paint- that can cause health problems in tenants. (Bastards!)
That these requirements will be maintained while the tenant is renting the property. (How could they!)
If you were renting a property from someone, wouldn’t you expect/demand that anyway? Of course you would- because if you are reading this blog you are likely reasonably well-educated, more likely than not middle-class, and have a basic understanding that you are entitled to certain crazy things, like a home free of lead paint.
The 'controversy,' in theory, is because landlord groups are complaining that the bill gives tenants too many rights and is too vague. They allege this:
Lawrence Fischer, an attorney for the Apartment Association of Greater Philadelphia, counters that the law is too vague, citing "health and safety" without defining those terms. And Fischer said it lets a tenant manipulate the law to avoid being evicted.
"That's just not right," he said. "Any person who is about to get evicted, all they have to do is concoct an allegation of a violation and it stops the process."
This is frankly laughable. Maybe things have greatly changed from a year ago, but I have actually sat in on Landlord-Tenant Court, at least a year after the bill was passed. To say that the Court or law was in any way stacked towards tenants is a total joke. And, to imply tenants can win by simply inventing violations is a flat out lie.
Landlord-Tenant Court is a piece of Municipal Court that is- as the name suggests- a place where tenants and landlords are supposed to be able to bring and settle disputes. However, tenants almost never actually use their rights, and LT court could more aptly be described as eviction court. What you generally have are low-income tenants, almost never with counsel and almost never with an understanding of their rights, facing landlords, often represented by counsel, who have been through this process before. The power dynamic is dramatically tilted to the landlord. And, while I am sure the tenant must win sometime, I never saw it, on a daily docket with about 30 cases.
Basically, Philly landlords got used to a court that quickly served their needs. Then this law passed, and despite the fact that the overall power dynamic hasn’t changed (because most tenants still don't have counsel and don't know their rights) - landlords got pissed. Now, despite his vote for the bill as a City Councilman, landlords appear to have an ally in Mayor Nutter and the City Solicitor. We have reached bizarro world when the City Solicitor states she is suspending a law protecting low-income people because she doesn't know if it is enforceable, and because... it might not be consistent with the Mayor's goals.
First, what goals are those? And second, I must have missed the lesson in civics class where the Mayor can stop enforcing laws he doesn't care for.
I challenge anyone- for example, the Mayor or the City Solicitor- to sit in on a few sessions of LT court, and then tell us with a straight face that tenants in this city have too much power in the eviction process. As tenant after tenant either doesn’t show up, or has no understanding of their rights nor any comfort level defending themselves, and are then evicted or pressured into a behind-closed-doors mediation process, the reality of the situation will become quite clear.
If the problem here is vagueness- then take the issue to City Council, and let them modify the bill. Because, when low-income advocates get City Council to pass a good bill, and the Mayor simply decides to stop enforcing it, there are some pretty crappy implications that can be drawn.
The Mayor should go back to actually enforcing the law that is on the books, and City Council can- out in the open- hold hearings on possible changes. A situation where the City simply cuts a deal with landlord groups is a shameful joke.
The New York Times today was moved to ask the question that has bounced around this website for months: why is Michael Nutter, who in many ways seems to have an affinity for Barack Obama (cross-party appeal, plausible and powerful invocations of change and reform) supporting Hillary Clinton instead?
In some ways, the question that the endorsement has raised is the Rubik’s Cube at the core of the “post racial” politics that both he and Mr. Obama represent: If Mr. Obama’s candidacy is a historic racial benchmark, how do you introduce that idea into political discourse without reference to the old racial politics that give the benchmark its meaning?
Vivian McCabe, a grandmother, neighborhood block captain and supporter of both Mr. Nutter and Mr. Obama, expressed the frustration in a sidewalk interview the other day. “I was shocked,” she said, referring to Mr. Nutter’s endorsement of Mrs. Clinton. “Not because he’s black, but — I was just looking at him to...” She paused. “What words should I use?” she said. She could not come up with any.
If Mr. Nutter is inclined to ponder the conundrum, the political veteran in him — he was a Democratic committeeman, party ward leader and city councilman before running for mayor — does not show it.
The last sentence probably nails it. There's a cute section where Michael Nutter notes (over grilled cheese and chocolate milk at Little Pete's) that Obama is "'a really nice guy who’s talking about really important issues,' 'and I am aware that he is African-American.'" And an 82-year-old from Nutter's ward gets the last word: "'Nutter’s a smart fellow,' he said. 'He knows what he’s doing.' In this particular case...the new mayor just happened to be wrong."
I have issues with both Ed Rendell and Mike Nutter, but, generally, they are pretty likeable guys. And so, when they- and our City- get national attention, during the presidential race, I feel stirrings of pride.
As most know, in this campaign, Rendell and Nutter both endorsed Clinton. Rendell is close to the Clintons, making his endorsement pretty unsurprising. Nutter's endorsement has set off all sort of questions and theories. Personally, I really don't care why he, or Rendell are endorsing Clinton. She is a qualified candidate for President.
But, boy, I wish when they were being interviewed they wouldn't enforce stupid frames when talking about the race:
First, there is Nutter. His new line is subtly stirring the Jeremiah Wright controversey.
Obviously, the above interview is heavily edited, and at some point the reporter mentions that Nutter thought the Obama speech great. But, come on. When this controversey started, Clinton basically ignored it. After all, this was a fox news, right-wing controversey being fed in the conservative echo chamber. But, when the reality of her 'sniper fire' visit to Bosnia started to hurt her poll numbers, all of a sudden, Clinton became chatty about Wright:
"We don't have a choice when it comes to our relatives," she said. "We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend. Everyone will have to decide these matters for themselves. They are obviously very personal matters."
It clearly became the campaign spin, and Nutter basically repeated it. Stupid move. This is the same crap that we will be hearing from the GOP and Fox, over and over, come the fall. Obama's speech was a watershed moment in our national discourse. Muddying it like this is just plain stupid.
Then, there is Rendell...
One nice thing in recent years is that Democrats have started to debunk any notion that Fox is a legitimate news source. But, there is Fast Eddie, praising Fox News, with a straight face as 'fair and balanced.'
Yeah, real fair, real balanced:
Why would a Democrat legitimize an organization that puts out right-wing propaganda? How about when they told us all that Obama attended a Madrassa? Was that cool? Or how about when they go after African-Americans? Down with that?
It doesn't bother me that these guys are endorsing Clinton, and I don't care why they chose her. I loved when Nutter said that Clinton and Obama needed to focus on urban issues. But, I really wish they would just leave it at that- pushing their candidate, and pushing issues that matter to Philly and PA.
Obama is going to be our Presidential nominee. It makes me cringe to see our biggest political leaders use right-wing frames in an attempt to help Clinton.
...why this little tidbit makes me happy about Mayor Nutter:
Sometimes it's good to be mayor.
Mayor Nutter is such a huge fan of the gritty HBO drama, The Wire, that he has organized a special City Hall screening of the series finale Sunday night.
“As a fan it’s tremendous,” said Nutter, who squeezed in a viewing of the season opener in the jam-packed days before his inauguration. “I want to say thank you to HBO for responding.”
Wendell Pierce, the actor who portrays affable Detective Bunk Moreland, is scheduled to attend. Nutter hopes other actors from the show will sign on also.
The Wire is not so much a TV show as it is a stunning, ridiculously powerful indictment of the neglect of American cities, and the people within them. If you read this site, if you care about Philadelphia, trust me, you need to see the show.
I am only partially kidding when I say that it heartens me that Nutter is a huge fan of the show. If you don't watch the show (cough- Ray- cough), you might think I am being weird.
But, if you do watch it, you know exactly what I mean, right? Mayor Nutter is a devoted fan of the Wire, and that makes you feel a little better about where we are going in the next 3.9 years.
So Michael Nutter named another deputy mayor. Why is it headline news? Because it is the deputy mayorship for the office of ex-offenders, and the new deputy mayor has been in prison.
This is not really a surprise, and I mean that in the best possible way. While I share some of Stan's concerns about the mayor's tax priorities, his appointments have (with scant exception) been wonderful.
One weird thing about picking Ronald Cuie: he's not exactly every guy from West Oak Lane who got caught up in dealing when he was younger and managed against the odds to turn himself around.
He's already been a deputy mayor, under Rendell, and a deputy managing director under Goode. So he's privileged. And he did the kind of things that privileged people do: cocaine and alcohol. If he hadn't gone too far, and hadn't ended up beating, tying up, and torturing a companion, it is pretty unlikely that his coke habit would have gotten him thrown in jail.
As it was, he spent only three years in prison for his conviction ("robbery, aggravated assault, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment and criminal conspiracy"). Presumably when he got out, he had at least some of the safety net that a once-high-ranking city official is likely to have.
This all makes him pretty atypical of the people coming out of prison and back to Philly neighborhoods. He's clearly spent time and energy since his release devoted to helping make systemic changes in the prison and re-entry systems. Hopefully he will serve as a literal bridge to those in power who think they are detached from the problems of those in prison, those getting out, and their families. And hopefully he has come to understand the huge structural obstacles people who aren't deputy mayors face when they have to restructure a life after incaceration.
Yesterday, Charles Ramsey and Mayor Nutter released the new crime plan that will be implemented, following Nutter's declaration (fulfilling a campaign promise) of a 'crime emergency' in the city. Despite worries centered around Nutter's "Safety Now" campaign plan, and his rhetoric about civil liberties ("you have the constitutional right not to be shot."), we have a plan centered around community policing...
Thank goodness!
In the 21-page report, stop-and-frisk, already used somewhat by the police force, is mentioned one time. They are also planning to greatly increase the use of surveillance cameras, which I am not a huge fan of.
However, the most worrisome part of Nutter's campaign plan- declaring a state of emergency over entire neighborhoods, with corresponding curfews, going after people 'gathering' on sidewalks, limiting cars going in and out of neighborhoods, etc., has basically vanished. Instead, the plan emphasizes sending more officers into communities, and get back to basics. As Ramsey said:
"There is nothing fancy about it," the former Washington, D.C., police chief said at a news conference. "It's fundamental, it's basic. This is not Batman and Robin coming out of a cave somewhere."
I don't know whether Nutter had a change of heart, whether Ramsey 'walked him back,' or what. And then, we have the the appointment of Everett Gillison as his Deputy Mayor for Public Safety:
"I have spent the majority of my adult life as a social worker or as an attorney representing these people," said Gillison, a lifelong Philadelphian. "We went through this whole bit of 'just lock everybody up' . . . but I always thought those people were our kids."
At the heart of Nutter's campaign was his pledge to reduce violent crime. He's hired a nationally renowned police commissioner who today releases a new crime plan.
But Nutter said he needed better oversight of the entire criminal-justice system. He wanted cooperation among police, judges and prisons. He wanted someone to analyze the big picture and develop new strategies for problems like youth violence and convicts' re-entry into society after prison.
....
Beyond that, Gillison is looking for projects that will help reduce violence in Philadelphia in the long term. He spoke about enhancing re-entry programs and expanding the number of community courts to handle smaller offenses.
Regardless of whether you thought it was a good thing at the time, Nutter ran on a crime platform that policy and rhetoric wise was very law-and-order. However, by his actions thus far, his crime policies as Mayor are pretty basic and reasonably progressive, and will decidedly not launch martial law in Philly neighborhoods. Count me relieved, and happy.
Update- Be sure to check out Penn Future's Christine Knapp's feedback in the comments. Maybe the green advocacy community is just gearing up, rather than sitting back...
Bruce Schimmel's CityPaper column this week talks about the green movement of the City, and the kick in the ass the community received when Mike Nutter re-appointed noted recycling anti-advocate, Clarena Tolson:
With Tolson's reappointment as commissioner of Streets, they felt kicked to the curb.
"This is the very antithesis of a new day and a new way," said one advocate. "Tolson stymied every effort to create a viable recycling program," another added. Stunned, and I think humiliated at having been blindsided, no one would speak on the record. Saying instead they needed to speak with "one voice," they found no voice at all.
...
In addition to demanding a "national search" for the "most qualified" candidates in their five-point agenda, the Alliance also had mayoral hopefuls promise "total transparency," by promoting cooperation between the new Streets commissioner and the very groups whom Tolson had shut out.
Basically, the entire environmental/green advocacy community put into their plans during campagin season that this woman needed to be replaced. Nutter endorsed those plans. But, now, for a reason no one can really pinpoint, Tolson has been reappointed. Pretty strange.
I know that in many ways, Tolson will do better work with a little fire under her ass. But, um, so what? Why, when qualified people are being replaced in City Government, because Nutter wants his own team, would a person like this stay?
But, much more important is the question for advocates: Schimmel takes a look at the City's green movement, and basically sees a group that has neutered itself, and has quietly not complained when they obviously just got a stick in their eye.
There is a more charitable description of it all- that they are giving Nutter time to work, etc. That is fine and good, but that certainly isn't how I would do it. It just is not in my nature to let someone give me a kick while I smile and take it. This isn't the green movement asking for a 50 million dollar new program; this is simply asking that someone who was long seen as an adversary of a clean, green city, no longer be holding the keys to the kingdom.
That said, I sort of admire the behavior of the greens here. Just like I admire the good government types who didn't mind when Nutter wholly endorsed Bob Brady as party chair while vaguely talking about reform. Just like I admire the historic preservationists who didn't seem to complain that Nutter, the new Mayor and ex-chair of the Convention Center, was nowhere to be found when historic buildings were being illegally destroyed for Convention Center expansion.
OK, some of the above is sarcasm, but as someone who is way too impatient about everything, I admit there is a virtue
somewhere in there.
At heart, I really do think Mike Nutter can be a great Mayor. But, that won't be if he serves as a dictator- it will be if advocates demand a seat at the table and act as watchdogs. Nutter is not a superhero, and if we want the City to be all that it can be, I don't think it does us any good to simply sit down, keep quiet and hope for the best.
Joshua Glenn over at The Boston Globe/Brainiac has been working on a smart series on American generational categories. In the inaugural post, he takes on the question of whether Barack Obama (born in 1961) is part of the baby boom generation or the post-baby-boom generation. Arguing that the traditional twenty-year generational divisions aren't sufficiently flexible, he proposes the following categories:
1914-23: Greatest Generation
1924-33: Postmodernist Generation
1934-43: Anti-Anti-Utopian Generation
1944-53: Boomers
1954-63: OGX (Original Generation X)
1964-73: PC Generation
1974-83: Net Generation
1984-93: Millennials
1994-03: Too soon to say
Michael Nutter has named a director of the Office of Research, Planning, and Policy: Wendell Pritchett, of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (so yeah, he had to deal with me and Dan in class).
During the primary campaign, I questioned--um, speaking delicately--Michael Nutter's emphasis on declaring a state of emergency, and wondered whether his commitment to tax cuts would limit him from really addressing the poverty and inequality that persists across many Philadelphia neighborhoods (as the recent Urban League Study glaringly showed).
But among the things that I did like and respect, the greatest were Nutter's positions on housing, community development, and city planning. I have quoted Nutter maybe twenty times now on the need for assertive and visionary city planning. His papers on zoning and planning reform and housing and community development are really pitch-perfect. I complain a lot (I am Jewish, it is my real birthright), but I have no complaints about the policies outlined in those papers. They include reworking the tax abatement so that it fosters development of affordable housing and development targeted to areas still needing revitalization; unifying related agencies; and creating a land bank for vacant property. The policies are attentive to the need to balance gentrification with neighborhood preservation. If we do half of what they propose, the landscape of housing and development in this city would be both more efficient and much fairer.
The man who was central to developing those policies was Wendell Pritchett. Professor Pritchett is a great academic and an expert on land use and fair housing law. More than that, though, he brings an engagement with progressive public policy. That means turning a critical eye towards how law and policy have served to reinforce poverty and segregation, and having a vision of how they could instead ameliorate it.
One of the most striking parts of the recent Daily News assessment of NTI was that NTI bond dollars were being used to substitute for missing federal money:
Over the years, NTI morphed into a dizzying array of programs. Demolition and acquisition activities remain the anchors, but there also are home-loan and repair programs, a retaining-wall program, programs to work with the issues of homelessness and predatory lending, and support for commercial corridors.
Many of these activities were pre-existing programs in city government, all financed by federal tax dollars. Trouble was, those dollars started to disappear, particularly after the Iraq war began.
Kevin Hanna, the city's housing secretary, said NTI bond money was used to "backfill" many of these existing programs.
Without the bond money, Smith said, many housing programs would have been cut in half. But even with the inflow of new NTI money, "we were basically treading water."
NTI was ambitious and it was unfinished, and that bond money is slated to run out in July. As the discussion around the recent "Inclusionary Housing" bill has shown (here and here) there is great need, made even starker by the lack of federal dollars for housing and urban redevelopment. But we are entering this new administration with someone who understands the problems and has knowledge and experience to bring to bear. Congratulations, Professor Pritchett, and thank you for taking the job.
The Committee of Seventy, hot off of the success of its co-sponsorship of The Next Mayor project, has turned its attention to updating the city charter, arguing (as Sylvester Johnson also recently said) that the police commissioner should have more power to appoint his subordinates and to recruit police officers who don't currently live in the city. My reaction to this was similar to Dan's:
This is a little strange. I understand they are a good government group, so getting their opinion on taking away civil service jobs and moving them to appointments makes sense. But, doesn't it seem strange that instead of being asked about whether they would support a move, they are actually proposing policing policy changes?... (I)t seems more like the Committee of Seventy is either greatly expanding its mission, or that someone asked them to issue this call for change, so as to use their goodwill in the media, etc.
On Sunday, Zack Stalberg appeared on Live at Issue. He said that with the change in office, the Committee of Seventy was likely to shift its attention away from ethics violations (the main issue during the Street Administration) and towards "good government," i.e., efficiency, the quality of city services, etc. The proposed changes to the city charter, then, would fall under how the Committee is now interpreting its mandate.
But even if it's a broadening of focus rather than a wholesale change, I find this troubling -- especially insofar as it seems part of a narrative that with Street out and Nutter in, the city's ethical problems are over and we can move on to other issues. The presumption that a change of the top office holder somehow changes both the prevailing dynamics and universal potential for corruption is woefully short-sighted. [Read on after the jump.]
Last week, Michael Nutter submitted, and the Inky Ed Board printed, an op-ed defending Congressman Bob Brady as both a Congressman and the leader of the party. The Mayor-elect said that:
Brady and I have had many discussions about the need to change the way we do business in Philadelphia. I believe he supports my agenda for reform in city government and the Democratic Party.
A lot of us wondered what exactly that latter part--about the party--meant. Today's Inky includes a brief attempt by Patrick Kerkstra to get Nutter to clarify on what he meant:
Asked what specific reforms he'd like to see, Nutter said the party ought to have an open process for choosing which candidates to support. He also proposed training for would-be candidates, stepped-up recruiting of candidates and committee members, and a guest speaker program. Asked about the shakedown that judicial candidates are subjected to by some ward leaders, Nutter said he'd prefer that judges not be elected.
"These are the kinds of issues I intend to have discussions with the chairman about," Nutter said.
Compare that to this list of reforms that some of us have been pushing directly with the party chair ourselves:
Will the party change the unfair special election process so that individual voters have some say?
Will every ward leader in the party commit to holding open ward meetings, where anyone can watch and ask questions?
Will the party chair convene an annual platform convention so that all members of the party can share their ideas for the policies and laws that party-endorsed candidates will push?
Will every committee person in the city commit to canvassing their division every election, making at least three attempts to have face-to-face contact with a voter?
Will the party chair lay out appropriate and inappropriate ways for ward leaders to handle "street money" to stop the shaking down of candidates, especially judges, for office?
Nutter's reply to Kerkstra was given on-the-go at the Pennsylvania Society in New York. Nutter also said:
Reforming the party is a priority for me, and I don't think people should try to read any tea leaves or read too much into the letter.
I certainly agree.
There wasn't much in his letter to read into. I hope when he returns from New York he will clarify once and for all which progressive reforms to the party he supports and which he doesn't. If he has been speaking with Congressman Brady about making these changes, it would be interesting to hear the process and time line for implementation they have come up with.
If their conversations have been more general, then I wonder when Nutter plans to prioritize having a more detailed one, and if he will seek the input of others--like those of us who have already outlined ideas for party reform.
A number of us have been agitating and organizing--both online and off--to make changes in the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee. Congressman Brady, the party chair, has been responsive to this effort, but actual negotiations are still a far-off dream.
That's why I was very interested to see your op-ed to the Inky in which you referenced talks you have been having with the Chairman.
Many of us are really curious to know what your agenda for reforming the party is. Here's ours:
Will the party change the unfair special election process so that individual voters have some say?
Will every ward leader in the party commit to holding open ward meetings, where anyone can watch and ask questions?
Will the party chair convene an annual platform convention so that all members of the party can share their ideas for the policies and laws that party-endorsed candidates will push?
Will every committee person in the city commit to canvassing their division every election, making at least three attempts to have face-to-face contact with a voter?
Will the party chair lay out appropriate and inappropriate ways for ward leaders to handle "street money" to stop the shaking down of candidates, especially judges, for office?
I am a life-long Democrat, and there is a lot to love about our local party, but there are also some things that need to be changed.
I hope our agendas for reforming the party overlap.
Please feel free to send an email in reply to info AT youngphillypolitics.com, or better yet post a blog entry. Unlike Chaka Fattah, Dwight Evans and Bob Brady, you don't have a user account here, but trust me, it's very easy to set up. And if you have any trouble, email and I will be more than willing to help.
The endorsement of Brady for Congress in Michael Nutter's Inky op-ed yesterday wasn't strange, but this was:
I want to outline why I think Brady is an important asset to my new administration. Both as a member of Congress and as head of the city's Democratic Party...Brady and I have had many discussions about the need to change the way we do business in Philadelphia. I believe he supports my agenda for reform in city government and the Democratic Party.
Practically, I understand why a Democratic Mayor would want to forge a relationship with the Democratic Party chair, but if that is the road Nutter is going down, then he needs to answer the same specific questions that have been asked of Brady about reforming the party.
Here's my attempt at boiling down some of the concerns into a simple agenda for Philadelphia Democratic Party reform:
Will the party change the unfair special election process so that individual voters have some say?
Will every ward leader in the party commit to holding open ward meetings, where anyone can watch and ask questions?
Will the party chair convene an annual platform convention so that all members of the party can share their ideas for the policies and laws that party-endorsed candidates will push?
Will every committee person in the city commit to canvassing their division every election, making at least three attempts to have face-to-face contact with a voter?
Will the party chair lay out appropriate and inappropriate ways for ward leaders to handle "street money" to stop the shaking down of candidates, especially judges, for office?
Bob Brady is an interesting guy. I don't know him super well, but I like him.
Bob Brady has not, however, committed to an agenda for reforming what some of us perceive to be the problems in the Democratic party.
Brady did meet with some of us "progressives" last year to discuss this. As Clout reported:
The gripes? Unresponsive committeemen. Corrupt judicial elections. Undemocratic selection to fill City Council vacancies. Weak voter-turnout efforts. Patronage. Nepotism. Politics as usual...
"Bob went by himself into this group of 20 people, about 10 of whom had real issues with him," said Hannah Miller of Philly for Change. "He sat there and took it. I have nothing but respect for the man. "
"He was kind of in the hot seat," said Jen Murphy, chairwoman of Philly for Change. "It's the start of a conversation. "
Ray Murphy of Philadelphians Against Santorum said, "I think Bob Brady is a nice guy. I had a good time, but that doesn't change what a lot of us are doing. "
Marc Stier of Neighborhood Networks gushed on his blog: "Congressman Brady was charming, articulate, incredibly quick on his feet and well prepared. "
Our breakfast was fun, but nothing was really resolved. Brady has indicated that he is open to talking again, but for whatever reason, nothing has happened yet.
That's why it is exciting that Mayor-elect Nutter says that he has been talking to Chairman Brady about reforms in the party. But why the secrecy about it?
Nutter does not say what reforms he is suggesting they are nor can they be found on his website.
I hope Mayor-elect Nutter is willing to take on the agenda for party reform above and share with us his plans too. The people listed above by no means lead the city or even the “movement.” However, the concerns we articulated to Brady last year, that I attempt to capture above, are real, and they affect a majority of Philadelphia voters.
Recent comments
12 hours 13 min ago
12 hours 49 min ago
14 hours 10 min ago
14 hours 39 min ago
15 hours 1 min ago
15 hours 21 min ago
15 hours 26 min ago
15 hours 36 min ago
15 hours 38 min ago
15 hours 58 min ago