political restrictions on city employees

[emoney]

Council committee moves to loosen political constraints | Philadelphia Daily News | 03/16/2010

The legislation, still awaiting final action by Council, would set up a public referendum in November's general election on whether to do away with the city charter's strict restrictions on political activity and let Council set the rules.

If the public votes for the proposal, City Council would be allowed to approve new regulations on political activity and change them by city ordinance, without needing further approval from voters.

The proposed referendum, sponsored by 15 of the 17 Council members, would ask voters: "Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to authorize the creation by ordinance of standards of ethical conduct with respect to the political activities of City officers and employees, and to provide penalties for violations?"

[MarketStEl]

Given what Council appears to be doing with the existing Board of Ethics, I think this is a very bad idea. I will urge everyone I know to vote against this charter amendment.

[Seanibus]

Given what Council appears to be doing with the existing Board of Ethics, I think this is a very bad idea. I will urge everyone I know to vote against this charter amendment.

If they truly modeled the restrictions on the Federal restrictions, then things would probably be OK - the federal rules are not perfect, but they work reasonably well. But that would be a big "if".

[raider.adam]

Given what Council appears to be doing with the existing Board of Ethics, I think this is a very bad idea. I will urge everyone I know to vote against this charter amendment.

The thing is, the way the charter has it, it probably wouldn't hold up to a First Amendment challenge if someone really wanted to go after it.

I don't agree with the Charter in that city employees can not have political activity outside of work, not even so much as having a sign in the window.

[emoney]

The thing is, the way the charter has it, it probably wouldn't hold up to a First Amendment challenge if someone really wanted to go after it.

I don't agree with the Charter in that city employees can not have political activity outside of work, not even so much as having a sign in the window.

I'm sorry to be cynical but the importance of voter participation should not be eliminated especially since the members of council have not actually given me any reason to trust them "If the public votes for the proposal, City Council would be allowed to approve new regulations on political activity and change them by city ordinance, without needing further approval from voters"

[raider.adam]

I'm sorry to be cynical but the importance of voter participation should not be eliminated especially since the members of council have not actually given me any reason to trust them "If the public votes for the proposal, City Council would be allowed to approve new regulations on political activity and change them by city ordinance, without needing further approval from voters"

I don't trust City Council to do the right thing by default either, but certain things are better handled via legislation than Charter.

As for voter participation, the current Charter is limiting voter participation - it is restricting their ability to be part of the electoral process on their own time.

[MarketStEl]

The shame is that raider.adam and emoney are BOTH right.

[seand]

The thing is, the way the charter has it, it probably wouldn't hold up to a First Amendment challenge if someone really wanted to go after it.

I don't agree with the Charter in that city employees can not have political activity outside of work, not even so much as having a sign in the window.

I'd say more relaxed Federal rules for average city employees to allow basic political participaton when off the clock but also eliminate row offices exemptions entirely so the same rules apply to them (or consolidate the row offices all together), council staff and "exempt" mayoral staff. Also the same Federal rules for PPA, RDA. And no more Controller's Office jobs hidden in the School District.

Part of the problem with patronage is that committee people get BS jobs, which wastes money, but the other part is those people become desperately entrenched in the party to hold onto their B.S. jobs because its their source of livelihood. In other words it distorts competition and the functioning of open debate within the two parties themselves. If anyone can be a committee person provided its completely off duty and off the clock, there might be a little more competition for those committee seats as well - based on political beliefs - not on trying to hold onto B.S. city jobs for generations - like Vivian Miller and daughter at the CQS or the Tartaglione clan at the City Commissioners.

[Cya]

Council committee moves to loosen political constraints | Philadelphia Daily News | 03/16/2010


The proposed referendum, sponsored by 15 of the 17 Council members, would ask voters: "Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to authorize the creation by ordinance of standards of ethical conduct with respect to the political activities of City officers and employees, and to provide penalties for violations?"

It's sentences like this that show up on the ballot that most people don't understand. Do they intentionally make these ballot questions hard to understand?

I don't trust anything coming out of this current city council. I vote NO.

[raider.adam]

Seth Kreimer, a University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor, said that if the city did not change the charter, "federal courts will do it for you."

Council may end ban on workers' political activity | Philadelphia Inquirer | 03/16/2010

[seand]

It's sentences like this that show up on the ballot that most people don't understand. Do they intentionally make these ballot questions hard to understand?

I don't trust anything coming out of this current city council. I vote NO.

Agreed on the confusing wording.

This one is particularly disengenuous since its phrased to make it sound like they are coming down with tougher rules for ethics violations when actually they are relaxing an outright ban on political activity for civil service employees but setting new rules for what the constitutes mixing politics with work for civil service employees.

They are phrasing it so more relaxed (but probably more strictly Constitutional) rules sound like they are tougher rules. Total deception.

I agree more with Adam but I'm skeptical of this because

1. I'd like the exact new rules spelled out more clearly

and

2. They don't loosen civil service rules unless they also have eliminating the row offices on the same ballot - since the row offices is how the local Democratic Party gets around civil service rules to hand out B.S. no-work patronage jobs currently. And that includes moving all non-School District employees off the School District budget - another practice used by the BRT and the Controller to get around the rules.

If you are going to loosen the rules then they also need to get rid of the current exceptions they are already abusing.

[raider.adam]

1. I'd like the exact new rules spelled out more clearly

True, it would be nice to see what legislation they plan to pass the day the charter is amended. Of course we have another month or so.

I don't think they are planning to eliminate row offices this ballot. Of course they SHOULD do it for the november ballot so that way people arent' running for election in 2011.

[seand]

I don't think they are planning to eliminate row offices this ballot. Of course they SHOULD do it for the november ballot so that way people arent' running for election in 2011.

Good point. The clock is ticking. Time for action and of course Nutter is keeping quiet till Miller is gone on her own schedule and his budget is passed - which is disappointing but not unexpected.

[Cya]

The legislation, still awaiting final action by Council, would set up a public referendum in November's general election on whether to do away with the city charter's strict restrictions on political activity and let Council set the rules.

So, if I am reading this correctly, Council hasn't actually approved this legislation yet? I'm wondering if they would clarify the wording prior to it showing up on the ballot in November?

What are the big races in November?

I foresee all the bullet ballots being handed out to voters to say "VOTE YES" on Question #____. And if the voters aren't smart (we know many are not) .. this seems like a slam dunk for those supporting it, IMO.

Remember the ballot question asking to change the Fairmount Park system? It was an easy win due to the high voter turnout for Obama. "Vote Yes. Because we tell you to."

[raider.adam]

So, if I am reading this correctly, Council hasn't actually approved this legislation yet? I'm wondering if they would clarify the wording prior to it showing up on the ballot in November?

What are the big races in November?

I foresee all the bullet ballots being handed out to voters to say "VOTE YES" on Question #____. And if the voters aren't smart (we know many are not) .. this seems like a slam dunk for those supporting it, IMO.

Remember the ballot question asking to change the Fairmount Park system? It was an easy win due to the high voter turnout for Obama. "Vote Yes. Because we tell you to."

November is Governor, US Senate, Congressional, state rep and some State Senate. Good sized turnout.


This is something that should be voted yes. I don't have a problem moving it out of the charter and into the Philadelphia code.

[seand]

I'd rather let the courts rule it unconstitutional at this point with no bill in place in City Council and no signs of any action on the row offices. I trust the courts more than I trust Council to do anything but cozy up to current ward leaders and write rules that expand patronage into civil service. This City Council and their glaring inaction of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions has shown themselves to be spineless or worse on this issue.

Even though I agree with Adam that current rules are likely an infringement on free speach rights.

[raider.adam]

I'd rather let the courts rule it unconstitutional at this point with no bill in place in City Council and no signs of any action on the row offices. I trust the courts more than I trust Council to do anything but cozy up to current ward leaders and write rules that expand patronage into civil service. This City Council and their glaring inaction of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions has shown themselves to be spineless or worse on this issue.

We need to make sure to put pressure on Council then to have the legislation on political activity drafted months before the ballot referendum. I'll work on drafting a form letter for people to send to Council if you would like.

I trust the courts more than I trust Council to do anything but cozy up to current ward leaders and write rules that expand patronage into civil service.

I bet you weren't saying that after the last First Amendment and campaign activity the Supreme Court ruled on.

[seand]

We need to make sure to put pressure on Council then to have the legislation on political activity drafted months before the ballot referendum. I'll work on drafting a form letter for people to send to Council if you would like.

Awesome. Thanks.

I bet you weren't saying that after the last First Amendment and campaign activity the Supreme Court ruled on.

No but I strongly think Congress needs to act. If the Supreme Court had acted more narrowly on only the Hillary movie as would have been expected if they were following judicial precedence they wouldn't be scrambling now. That decision was way out of the box "judicial activism".

The reason the city's civil service rules have never been challenged is because it would take someone with deep pockets to take it to court - presumably enough civil servants pushing on their union to act. But the union has until found it cheaper and more politic just to focus on buying politicians ears with contributions, rather than worry about their members constitutional rights to political expression. And the Party has always had the BRT, the state authorities like PPA and the RDA, and the row offices to load up with all the patronage jobs it really wants.

[emoney]

True, it would be nice to see what legislation they plan to pass the day the charter is amended. Of course we have another month or so.

Yes, it would be nice to see the proposed legislation but even then do you trust council's ability not to manage their own best interest by "from time to time, ordain standards of conduct..."?

Members of this council and standards of conduct seems oxymoronic.

Council may end ban on workers' political activity | Philadelphia Inquirer | 03/16/2010

Nutter's spokesman, Doug Oliver, said voters might not fully appreciate the ballot question, which would authorize Council to "from time to time, ordain standards of conduct with respect to the political activities of city officers and employees," according to the resolution proposing the question.

[raider.adam]

Yes, it would be nice to see the proposed legislation but even then do you trust council's ability not to manage their own best interest by "from time to time, ordain standards of conduct..."?

Members of this council and standards of conduct seems oxymoronic.

Council may end ban on workers' political activity | Philadelphia Inquirer | 03/16/2010

Nutter's spokesman, Doug Oliver, said voters might not fully appreciate the ballot question, which would authorize Council to "from time to time, ordain standards of conduct with respect to the political activities of city officers and employees," according to the resolution proposing the question.

So should campaign finance laws be part of the charter? Of course not.

I don't think employee work rules should be handle by a charter. They should be legislation. The fact council sucks is a different issue.