Opinion: City Controller runs for cover

By James Foster

The recent Philadelphia Inquirer front-page right-hand column above-the-fold disclosure that City Controller Jonathan Saidel had found irregularities within city government should have been in the entertainment section.

“Unbelievable” was my first reaction as I read the story, intended to convey a serious discovery. Then I realized how closely this llth-hour “investigation” parallels one of the best know clichés in what may be the most widely-watched film in history.

For those few who have not seen Casablanca, a quick summary: French Captain Reneau, corrupt Prefect of Police for a Nazi puppet government, holds court nightly in a club that provides virtually any service needed in the war-torn world of l942 — for a price. The captain shifts political gears with precision from moment to moment as the situation demands, responding to his German superiors or desperate refugees, always placing his power and survival at the forefront. The classic line, when the moment requires him to appear as a legitimate law-enforcer is: “I am shocked, shocked, to find gambling going on in here.” Of course the gambling tables are a permanent part of the establishment.

Can’t you just see Saidel, a 15-year veteran as city controller, aggressively reviewing computer records, scanning ledgers, verifying background checks with diligence, and finally shouting in desperation:  “I am shocked, shocked, to find irregularities within the operations of Philadelphia City Government”.

Give me a break! No, give us all a break! After months of preview information from the long-running FBI investigation covering these exact allegations of abuse and payoff politics, the controller now claims that “his” investigation resulted in “the worst audit I’ve every seen.” My guess is that this may be the first audit ever performed with the intent to find anything.

You don’t know whether to laugh or cry as some of this is actually done with a straight face and powerful individuals and office holders with long-established connections have to make decisions on where they stand, not knowing when the next shoe will drop, and who might be implicated. Resignations from city government have been frequent over the last several months, some from the closest insiders to the administration.

Bruce Crawley, long-term public relations specialist for Mayor Street, is just another example. This man, who for years would have to have been surgically separated from the mayor, and could rationalize every political misstep with language that would lacerate the accuser, has just picked a fight with the mayor on the most incredible of grounds: he disagrees on an appointment based on the individuals’ sexual orientation!  Anything to create distance as fast as possible.

Attorney Ron White claims his “pay-to-play” charges are just a “cultural misunderstanding” and alludes that racism plays a role in the indictments. Ironically, a substantial number of those who participated in pay-to-play are white executives of well-known financial firms and banks. It seems White’s alleged operations had equal opportunity beneficiaries.

White’s wife apparently benefited as a disadvantaged minority, despite the fact that she is married to a very successful individual and is a physician in her own right. It seems that Saidel’s audits missed these background details and the city also approved her applications to run some of the most lucrative concessions at the airport in record two-week time, when most applications take over 200 days to consider.

Philadelphians just don’t get it. One-party unchallenged governments are corrupt eventually if they are not corrupt immediately. The closest this city has come to reasonable respectable government was the short window from 1952-1968 when the reform Democrats finally removed the corrupt Republican machine that had continuous control since the 1890s. We now have had 52 years of one-party control by Democrats and policies, which not only destroyed good government, but also destroyed much of the city’s economic viability and job opportunity in the process.

If the past is any example, Philadelphians don’t let go of corruption easily. It took 15 years from the first initiated investigative grand juries in 1937 to influence political control and effect major reform in 1952; but then the federal government had little authority to investigate and prosecute municipal corruption.

Let’s hope this broad-scale FBI probe produces results much more quickly. Opinion: Reflections on the 'chaotic' budget process

Frank Rizzo, Councilman-at-Large

The Philadelphia budget process: how exciting — more exciting than we needed this year.

For years now, Philadelphia City Council received the proposed budget from the Mayor in late January or early February, with hearings in February and March, and passage in March or April. This year, though, the proposed budget was not received until April, with hearings in May, and passage in June. Given the normal rush of legislative business at the end of the spring term, as well as the tight fiscal environment and the demand for substantial tax reform, this created a chaotic process — one that did not serve the public interest well.

Then, there were the proposed cuts to arts, culture, recreation and public safety: 17 million dollars. In a 3.4 billion dollar budget, that’s about one-half of one percent. That’s almost nothing, but the choice of cuts generated a huge public outcry. What was that about? It certainly distracted from the tax reform debate. And, when the Mayor did his line-item veto, he used the opportunity just to reduce one item: police personnel. So … it may have been merely a smokescreen.

Further, the unions representing our city employees have long desired to enter into negotiations over their contracts expiring on July 1st. But, the Administration didn’t open those negotiations until a couple of weeks before the contracts were set to expire. Then, of course, the argument was that increases couldn’t be built into the budget, because it would tip the City’s hand in contract negotiations. So, that leaves the government in the position of: (1) arguing that there is no money in the budget for increases or (2) having to remake the budget after the contract negotiations. This fails to ensure fairness in the treatment of our employees: they have families, homes, health issues, and the life expenses that we all have. Understandably, the unions lobbied City Council to reject the budget pending approval of a contract. This added pressure to the process. We should have negotiated the contract before finalizing the budget, starting the process at least six months earlier. It would have lead to a fair negotiation, as well as a budget that reflects the true needs of the City (and its employees).

All this occurred during a rare season of tax reform, which fractured the Triumvirate of Council leadership: giving minority leader Councilman Brian O’Neill new status as a reformer. Following on the hard work of the Tax Reform Commission, Council had the votes to pass significant reforms of the Wage Tax and the Business Privilege Tax (11 votes) — but not enough to override a mayoral veto (requiring 12 votes). The mayor signed the first, but vetoed the latter. So, we got significantly more wage tax reductions, but no additional business privilege tax cuts — and no promise of the eventual elimination of the business privilege tax. Naturally, there’s always September …

That brings to mind one of the cleverest bits of strategy I’ve seen for a long while: Councilman Juan Ramos’s role in quieting the roiling speculation about what happens if we can’t pay employees, satisfy contracts, etc., starting the new fiscal year without a budget. Councilman Ramos — part of the Mayor’s loyal, veto-sustaining “sixdom” — seemingly broke with the Mayor by voting for the budget, but against the tax reform measures. Certainly, it had the effect of ending the destructive speculation that was dominating the news at the time; it sent a clear signal to the media and the public that there would be a budget on July 1: there would be a budget, because the Mayor could always line-item veto his way to the required balanced budget. It worked. The question is whether Councilman Ramos broke ranks with the Mayor — or acted at the behest of the Mayor.

And, of course, we also had those secret “lunches” that promoted distrust by the public and frustration by the media. Developing a unified position often does require discretion, but we do have a Sunshine Law that requires openness when a majority of Councilpeople meet to deliberate. I know that I participated: if you don’t participate, you can’t be a player. I owe that to my constituents. The required discretion should have been achieved by dealing with the leadership. Some Councilmembers are more influential than others: they should have “carried the water” — and, thus, avoided violating the act. More time would have reduced the need for a secretive process, too.

This year’s budget process was not our finest hour.

We needed the Mayor to submit a proposed budget early enough — and with sufficient detail — for rational deliberation and revision. We needed the Mayor to initiate contract negotiations with our employee unions early enough to ensure fair and respectful treatment — and, inclusion of increases in a realistic budget. We needed time to develop a Council position on the budget and tax reform that didn’t necessitate violations of the Sunshine Law.

Frankly, we just needed to do better.

And, I have the confidence that we will.

Fortunately, City Council had the good will and common sense to deal with this situation: restoring cuts to arts, culture, recreation and public safety; pushing tax reform; protecting the interests of our employees; and balancing budgets. We benefited particularly from the leadership of President Anna C. Verna and Minority Leader Brian O’Neill, and the incisive analysis of Councilman Michael Nutter and insight of Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr. We also owe a great debt of gratitude especially to City Council Chief Financial Officer Charlie McPherson and Technical Staff Director Rick Auerbach for their excellent advice and technical counsel.

I look forward to a better budget process next year.

Frank Rizzo
Councilman-At-Large
City of Philadelphia

Vigilance is necessary

Pastorius Park seemed to be the unlikely scene of a violent mugging on a placid Friday afternoon as park-goers walked their dogs and engaged in light conversation last week.

But three days earlier, two teenagers were victimized there, during daylight hours, at a time most of the park's dog crowd considers to be heavy traffic.

Park enthusiasts interviewed for this week's story found the attacks alarming, and all held the same sentiment: "That happened here?"

That sense of awe brought me back to an interview with Tom Pelikan, executive director of the Friends of the Wissahickon, in December 2003 for a story on park safety.

"The Wissahickon can be deceptive," Pelikan said. "In the incredible wilderness, you can forget you're in the fifth largest city in America … [the park] can lull you into a sense of complacency," he said.

No doubt, the tendency to dissociate from the urban landscape is part of any park's charm, but when people slip into complacency they may be opening the door for trouble.

While Chestnut Hill has the fortunate distinction of being the lowest violent crime neighborhood in the Northwest, if not the entire city, it is not untouchable.

That grim fact was made all the more real when memories of slain Daily News columnist and longtime Chestnut Hill resident W. Russell G. Byers surfaced earlier this month. A three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied Javier Goode's motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the 1999 murder.

While justice has been served in that case, the search continues for the assailants in this month's violent muggings.

The views, expressed by the teenagers interviewed for this week's story, of "Hill people" as uncaring bystanders, are unfair and unfounded. If those charges were qualified, the Local would not be reporting on community-sponsored events like Run For the Hill of It.

This week's crime coverage should not be seen as an indictment of the community, but as a reminder to stay vigilant, especially when considering this year's spike in the murder rate. Chestnut Hill shouldn't bolt its locks and hide indoors, but it should simply be aware.

The hand of crime touches every community, whether it's suburban or a suburb in the city.

Michael J. Mishak

City needs to dump double standard with law breakers

You may recall reading one year ago that the Philadelphia Boy Scouts of America chapter, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, was told by city officials that its rent-free lease on its elegant headquarters at 22nd and Winter Streets, a city-owned building, would be revoked if the Council did not end its illegal, discriminatory policy toward gays.

In the spring of 2003, the Council expelled a Life Scout after they learned he was gay during the national convention held here. They said the national Boy Scouts of America had a clear policy prohibiting gay Scouts and Scout leaders that the local council was obliged to follow.

When gay activists made the issue public, City Solicitor Nelson A. Diaz issued an opinion that the Boy Scouts were in violation of the city’s fair-practices law, which clearly forbids discrimination based on race, religion or sexual orientation. The city then informed the Scouts that they would have to abide by the law or vacate the city-owned building, since city taxpayers should not be required to subsidize discrimination.

So now, one year after that demand was made, what has happened? According to an article in the Inquirer on July 14, absolutely nothing! The policy demanded by the city, that “prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable,” still has not been adopted by the Cradle of Liberty Council, which still does not allow gays as Scouts or Scout leaders.

What’s worse is that the Street Administration will not back up its own policy on non-discrimination. They are continuing to allow an organization, which everyone concedes is discriminatory, to violate the law and use a palatial city property, rent-free, at taxpayers’expense. Do you think for one second that the city would tolerate such illegal discrimination if it were practiced against blacks, Hispanics, Italians, Irish or Jewish citizens?

In explaining why they are permitting this blatant flouting of the law, Barbara Grant, spokeswoman for Mayor Street, said that city officials have taken no action against the Council because they were too busy with the 2005 budget. “All of our attention was focused on that,” she said.

I’m surprised she did not say that elephants can fly.

The next time one of us fails to pay a traffic ticket or real estate taxes and then gets a threatening letter from the city, will we be allowed to get away with it by responding that “all of our attention has been focused on our jobs? We just didn’t have time to obey the law.”

If the city continues to wink when the Boy Scouts’ leadership violates the law, it is sending a message that it has a clear double standard; some people have to obey the law, and others do not. Isn’t it about time that the city live up to its own policies and require everyone, even the Boy Scouts, to obey the same laws?

Len Lear

Let’s face crime head-on

Most of us speak with pride about the village atmosphere of Chestnut Hill. Many of us have chosen to live here because of its beauty and charm. And it’s probably because of that almost idyllic image that I carry around in my mind and heart that it is so painful to read about crime in our neighborhood even when we know that we are not exempt and that vigilance is part of life today. 

It is even more painful to find out about crimes in our park — Pastorius Park — the scene of so many fun-filled concerts and a place where families gather. The crime is rendered even more outrageous because the victims of these attacks are our youth.

We now have a choice. We can join “Chicken Little” and decide that the “sky is falling” and that nothing is as good as it used to be. Or we can decide that our village within a city is worth all the hard work that it takes to maintain — and rise to the challenge of making Chestnut Hill safe.

We follow in a long line of Chestnut Hill residents who have looked around to find ways to make our community beautiful, clean and safe. We are the recipients of their hard work — and now it is our turn to make the difference that will maintain our “little corner of the world” as a place that is both safe and gives us peace of mind. 

If you are interested in helping out or supporting Town Watch, call the community association at 215-248-8810.

- Maxine Maddox Dornemann, president of the board, Chestnut Hill Community Association