An Our Philadelphia Blog Post
Missing provisions in ethics legislation
On March 5, City Council Majority Leader Marian Tasco, along with Councilman Bill Green, introduced multifaceted ethics legislation that Green estimates addresses 80% of the recommendations set forth by the Mayor’s Task Force on Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform, discussed here yesterday in regards to lobbying regulation and oversight. The Inquirer followed up on March 8 with an editorial entitled “Don’t toy with reform,” that quickly cut to the chase: “City Council's surprise new enthusiasm for plugging ethical loopholes in the city's rule book could come at a price that's not worth paying if it undermines efforts to clean up City Hall.”
-A restricted Inspector General-
At issue for the Inquirer are two changes to the City Charter proposed by the legislation, which is cosigned by 15 of the 17 members of City Council. The first would allow city workers to engage in political activity, donate to campaigns, and serve in political parties, all activities currently prohibited. The second would establish an independent office of Inspector General separate from the Mayor’s office, where the position is currently made by appointment. Charter status for the IG would allow more independence to investigate a wider range of city officials than currently possible. The Inspector General’s website outlines the IG’s presently limited scope of authority, “The OIG has jurisdiction to conduct investigations and audits over all departments, agencies, commissions and boards under the Mayor's jurisdiction, as well as in contracts with individuals or companies receiving City funds and doing business with the City.”
The fundamental purpose of the office of the Inspector General cannot be fulfilled unless the position has complete jurisdiction over Philadelphia government, and broadening the authority of the position has been necessary for years. Unfortunately, included in Tasco and Green’s popular bill is language that denies the Inspector General the power to investigate the actions of City Council. Bill Green was quoted stating, “We are a co-equal branch of government, and we don’t think the inspector general should have authority to investigate our affairs.” As the City Councilmembers know very well the need for and importance of a capable and thorough OIG, this is troubling.
The March 8 Inquirer editorial cited above closes with astute advice: “The problem is that the track record of a number of Council members over the years is in part why an IG is needed. Since Council's ethics committee is hardly ever heard from, it should follow the advice of the watchdog group Committee of Seventy to create an inspector general ‘with jurisdiction over the entire government.’”
Establishing a separate office of the Inspector General would require a ballot referendum, which is why Tasco and Green have offered this legislation just in time for the May 18 election. It would be a discredit to needed reform for the City Council’s deliberate exemption of oversight deserved by the public to successfully slip through the referendum process on the merits of an independent office of Inspector General.
-A public database and annual vs. election cycle limits-
While much of the reform included in the ethics bill is sorely necessary, members of City Council have once again forgotten the importance of campaign finance specifics long called for by government watchdogs and, most recently, the Mayor’s Task Force. The city of Philadelphia has no excuse not to greatly improve its publicly accessible campaign contribution database, something so many cities across the United States – including New York City and Pittsburgh - have seen the importance of doing.
Philadelphia’s current database operates across multiple pages and by way of cumbersome PDF documents; it is an unwieldy system that quickly becomes shameful when compared with the simple, clear, and speedy arrangements presented by other governments (for an example of this contrast, see pages 6 and 7 of our January report, “Hurry Down Sunshine” - PDF link). Skirting the development is not an issue of cost or lack of successful precedent. The tools for economical production are already available to give the public and journalists the systems they deserve to quickly and easily understand who is funding the campaigns of our elected officials. All that is missing is political will.
Finally, as also emphasized by the Mayor’s Task Force, campaign contribution limits for the city need to be changed from annual to election cycle limits. The current system of limiting total contributions by year allows incumbents a heavy advantage, as they often have the name recognition and established donor base to raise the maximum allowable amount from donors for each year of their election cycle, a near impossible feat for a new challenger. This system encourages perpetual campaigns and incumbency while discouraging reform and competitive elections.
As the Task Force’s report states, “It took 30 years – and a recent and appalling display of how a corrupt fundraiser extorted large political contributions in exchange for city contracting opportunities – for a municipal government in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to impose campaign finance limits on local elections.” In the past decade, the City of Philadelphia has taken admirable steps to change its unfortunate reputation. While it may be true, as Councilmember Bill Green would like to claim, that his legislation addresses 80% of the bulleted recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force, it is too often the purposefully omitted specifics that impede potentially meaningful reform so deserved by citizens in an age of information and growing government accountability.