Inquirer Editorial: Who's going to step up?

Should Philadelphians care that three-time loser Sam Katz isn't running for mayor? The question is not a comment on Katz's ability to be mayor, but rather on his chances of ever winning the office.

Still, Katz's announcement Monday that he won't run is noteworthy, if only because it raises another question: Who will? Mayor Nutter's record will discourage some challengers. His war chest will intimidate others. They won't be able to match it with the city's limits on political campaign contributions.

It's unlikely, however, that the mayor won't have any competition - and that's good for the city. Political campaigns with engaging candidates who, rather than dwelling on what hasn't worked, excite voters with new ideas, keep a big city's juices flowing. Voters should have a choice, even if they choose continuity.

The need for viable election choices is even more apparent when it comes to City Council. It's been a long time since this body has distinguished itself. Its very structure invites members to limit their agitation to turf battles over development projects or who gets which slice of the pie when the city doles out lucrative contracts.

It's good that Council had the good sense to push back as the mayor resorted to tax increases to get the city through the recession. But they all should have used the situation to take a harder look at local government, and then make some very unpopular decisions about what the city can no longer afford.

In fact, Council, seemingly following lessons learned by studying Marie Antoinette, decided to send a different message about budget consciousness: Get all you can, when you can. Several members who have signed up for the controversial pension perk known as DROP may collect the cash but not retire.

That's shameful. But the greater shame will be if voters in the next city election have no viable choices other than those incumbents who may not be violating the law by taking DROP money and running for reelection, but are violating the trust the public placed in them to put the city's best interest above their own.

City Solicitor Shelley Smith issued a legal opinion in October that said Council has the authority to end DROP, but that didn't budge Council President Anna C. Verna. "Merely saying that removing DROP participation for most employees 'could' be constitutional is of no help at all," she said.

Maybe the possibility that she "could" be voted out of office because of DROP would move Verna to act. But that possibility appears remote. More certain is her reelection, as well as the reelection of the other six Council members signed up for DROP, if they choose to run again.

In addition to Verna, Council members Marian B. Tasco, Frank Rizzo, Frank DiCicco, Jack Kelly, and Donna Reed Miller are together eligible to collect more than $2 million in DROP benefits by 2012 and return to office if reelected. Councilwoman Joan Krajewski has already collected. So have other city employees who then were rehired to work as consultants. But they're just following the example being set by their bosses.

Their recalcitrance on DROP is a clear sign that these Council members are in no fear of viable political challengers. They do what they want. Three new Council members were elected in the last election, but it's obvious more new blood is needed.