Philadelphia ballot questions: Recommendations on four City Charter amendments | Endorsement

It wouldn’t be election season in Philadelphia without voters being asked to weigh in on ballot questions. Like Harrisburg Republicans, Philadelphia City Council has begun to legislate through referendums, a move that good-government advocates believe upsets the checks and balances in our system of government. Since ballot questions are sometimes vaguely worded, and nearly all proposals pass, voters should exercise caution when evaluating each proposal.

Voters have been asked to decide on four different questions, the last of which demands particular scrutiny. Here are this board’s recommendations.

Should The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to expand the requirements for annual minimum appropriations to the Budget Stabilization Reserve, more commonly known as the “rainy day fund”?

Approved by voters in 2011, and supported by this board, the Budget Stabilization Reserve was created to put aside funds that could be used during fiscal emergencies. Under the provision, the city was required to contribute to the fund when there was a surplus at the end of its fiscal year. However, until 2020, when federal pandemic relief funds helped fill the city’s coffers, there had been zero contributions made to the rainy day fund. The amendment, proposed by Councilmember Katherine Gilmore Richardson and backed by the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, would help ensure larger deposits to better shield the city from unforeseen financial crises. Vote YES.

Should The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to create the Division of Workforce Solutions within the Department of Commerce and to define its duties?

The city’s Commerce Department helps support small and large businesses in Philadelphia. The proposal would set up a Department of Workplace Solutions that would, according to the amendment, “promote workforce development activity serving Philadelphians seeking jobs and training opportunities.” The department already has an Office of Business Development and Workforce Solutions that is focused on employers. Investing in workforce development is an important goal for the city, but how to properly set up city departments is a question best answered by the mayor. The ballot question does not require any funding, which likely means it will increase the workload at an already heavily burdened department. Vote NO.

Should The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to make employees of the Citizens Police Oversight Commission exempt from civil service hiring requirements?

The goal of the Citizens Police Oversight Commission is to hold the Philadelphia Police Department accountable, improve policing practices, and enhance communication between the department and the community. Anthony Erace, the commission’s interim executive director, testified in favor of the proposed change, which he says will help the oversight agency become more independent in its work. The carveout would separate commission employees from those in the Police Department, most of whom are part of the civil service system, as well as exempt the commission from cumbersome civil service hiring requirements that have contributed to staffing shortages. Vote YES.

Should The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to create the Office of the Chief Public Safety Director and to define its powers, duties and responsibilities?

At first blush, the idea seems worthwhile. After all, the city has been battling a record number of murders, daily shootings, and rampant shoplifting — among other examples of the kind of lawlessness that has taken hold across Philadelphia. But the new position will likely not result in meaningful change. If anything, it will add yet another layer of bureaucracy, and give officials another person to blame when things don’t improve.

While Council needs voter approval for the position, one important detail that will not be included in the ballot question is how much the chief public safety director will be paid. That’s been set at $265,000 a year — $41,000 more than what the mayor makes. That salary doesn’t include generous pension and health benefits, or the cost of support staff that will all be billed to taxpayers.

Another entanglement is that City Council will have the power to reject the mayor’s choice for the position, as well as dictate the job description and qualifications. That makes for a lot of cooks in the kitchen, and all but ensures a compromise candidate will be appointed.

At the end of the day, how much authority will the public safety director even have? To borrow a phrase from our friends in Texas, this job looks like it will be “all hat and no cattle.”

There are already plenty of people in charge of public safety in Philadelphia. For starters, the managing director oversees public safety. There is also a deputy managing director who heads the Office of Criminal Justice and Public Safety. (Extra credit if anyone can name these officials, who, like the mayor, are rarely seen or heard from.)

Of course, there is also the police commissioner who oversees the Police Department and its nearly $800 million budget. Finally, the mayor is ultimately in charge of public safety and ensuring the right people are in place and doing their jobs.

Therein lies the rub. City Council would likely not feel compelled to create the public safety position if there was a belief that Mayor Jim Kenney — or someone, anyone — was in charge and doing everything possible to address the surge in crime.

But the general consensus is that Kenney is ineffective and checked out. He made his lack of interest in the job clear last summer, when he told reporters he was looking forward to the time when he is no longer mayor.

The pointless public safety director position, which was rammed through with little debate by outgoing City Council President Darrell L. Clarke, is a problem of the mayor’s own making. The fact that City Council, which has several new members, voted 15-0 to override Kenney’s veto on the measure further underscores how he is the lamest of ducks.

However, while the city is adrift and lacking leadership from City Hall, there will be a new mayor in January. Council’s actions mean that taxpayers could be stuck paying for a useless public safety director in perpetuity. Vote NO.