Controller candidate tells another side of Phila.'s story in Harrisburg

As Mayor Nutter made his rounds recently in the State Capitol, urging lawmakers to pass the city's budget-relief legislation, he was shadowed by an unlikely figure: GOP City Controller candidate Al Schmidt.

"I was following in his wake, trying to correct the record," Schmidt said. "I wanted to explain that Philadelphia was in dire financial shape not simply because of the national economy, but because of political decisions that this mayor and former mayors and City Council have made."

It sounds strange, doesn't it? A Philadelphia Republican clashing with a powerful Democrat for actual ideological reasons? And on a matter of serious public importance?

Schmidt pitched his views to a powerful audience: Republican leadership in the state Senate. He says he met with Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware), Majority Whip Jane Clare Orie (R., Allegheny), and Senate President Pro Tem Joseph B. Scarnati (R., Cameron), among others.

"It was clear to me that the Republican Senate was going to give the mayor what he wanted. I wasn't trying to stop approval of the sales-tax hike, but I did want them to consider what strings could be attached that would compel the city to act in a more fiscally responsible way," said Schmidt, a former senior analyst at the nonpartisan U.S. Government Accountability Office.

His specific proposal - a state takeover of Philadelphia's pension fund - was considered by state senators but ultimately rejected as impractical, given the size of the city's fund and the administrative capacity of the state agency that would have managed it.

Nonetheless, Republican senators said Schmidt influenced the debate in Harrisburg.

"A lot of his ideas were talked about and incorporated," Orie said.

Schmidt faces incumbent Democratic City Controller Alan Butkovitz in November. - Patrick Kerkstra

Despite last-minute pension-related language that stirred consternation and opposition among the city's municipal unions, all seven state senators from Philadelphia voted last week to help the city dig itself out of a financial hole.

For at least one lawmaker, the vote wasn't easy.

Democratic Sen. LeAnna M. Washington issued an unusually blunt news release after the vote to explain why she did what she did.

"My vote is a reluctant one," she wrote. "I do not support this pension overhaul. It is irresponsible at best - and politics at its worst. There are provisions in this bill that do clear damage to collective bargaining - provisions that I fought to get out of this bill, but still they remain."

Washington, whose Fourth District includes Mount Airy, Germantown, West Oak Lane, and Olney, also wrote that she opposed the sales-tax hike called for in the legislation.

But ultimately, she said, she felt there was no option because of the dire consequences - including 3,000 city layoffs - that Mayor Nutter said would happen if the measure did not pass.

In an interview late last week, she elaborated more, adding some explanations that did not make their way into the release.

"There were a lot of things that kept me in the position that I was going to be a 'no' up until the very end," Washington said.

So what changed?

For one thing, senators from Pittsburgh said they would reject the bill if Philadelphia senators did.

Also, said Washington: "The Republicans were saying that if there was one single 'no' from the Philadelphia delegation, the legislation would die. That's the word that we got."

The outcome, of course, is her "no" became a definite "yes." - Marcia Gelbart

Next week, the state House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill that would relieve the city's current budget crisis by authorizing an increase in the sales tax and deferred contributions to the pension fund, among other things.

One of those other things is the loudly promoted barring of elected officials from the controversial Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), which allows city employees to start collecting pension benefits before they retire.

Early drafts of the bill approved by the Senate last week seemed to ban all politicians from DROP. "The DROP may not apply to elected municipal officials," read one version.

Oops. That could have been read as applying to the nine elected Philadelphia officials who are already enrolled in DROP: six City Council members, plus Register of Wills Ronald Donatucci, Sheriff John Green, and Clerk of Quarter Sessions Vivian Miller. So it was changed in another draft to apply only to "municipal officials elected after the effective date" of the new law.

Oops. That could be interpreted to apply to politicians already in office and to disqualify them from DROP after their next election.

The bill's current language fixes that, leaving DROP available to "an official elected prior to the effective date of this section who runs for reelection."

Whew. That leaves everyone in office eligible.

In fairness, pension officials say, it is unconstitutional to take away pension benefits that an employee once qualified for. Some suggested that the state legislature could have taken the benefits away from Philadelphia officials and then dared them to challenge the law in court. Don't bet on that happening. - Jeff Shields