Clean politics requires vigilance

Years from now, this time in the city's history may be referred to as the golden age of ethics. Once branded as corrupt and contented, Philadelphia - at least its executive branch - has been bereft of systemic scandal, real or imagined, during the last eight years. Not good for the media. Or defense lawyers. But it's the type of climate change we need.

Enjoy the fresh air now. It may not last long. But before I rain on the parade, let's bask in the sunshine for a moment and review some of what has been accomplished:

The city Ethics Commission has sharper teeth and is effectively led and professionally staffed. There is a strong, independent inspector general with an expanded staff, and a new integrity officer position to train and educate city employees. Tougher laws and regulations have been enacted in ethics, lobbying, and campaign financing. And Michael Nutter, a fighter for tougher reforms as a city councilman, has followed through as mayor. He has admirably set the proper tone, clearly and strongly, for an ethical government.

Tougher laws, a stronger enforcement infrastructure, and effective leadership represent an enviable legacy. But it is as fragile as a budding flower. Will the new mayor nurture it or starve it? The mayoral candidates should tell us now:

Will they call on City Council to pass a bill allowing for a City Charter change to make the independent inspector general a permanent position?

Will you retain the current inspector general, Amy Kurland, an effective, proven watchdog?

Will you keep the Ethics Commission viable by ensuring it has adequate funding, no less than its current $1 million budget - on the low side compared with other cities?

There are a host of other questions addressing how the candidates would be ethical stewards of city government. The Committee of 70 has submitted questionnaires for mayoral and Council candidates to answer (www.seventy.org). They should do so.

Much has been written about "dark" money in this election cycle. Here's how it works: Big-money people - including unions and corporations - funnel as much money as their hearts desire into a secret fund to help elect their candidate. The caveat is that the organization - whether a political action committee or a so-called 501(c)4 - must be independent of the campaign. No talking or coordinating strategy between them (wink, wink). Some of these organizations may not even have to disclose who their donors are, making their contributions hush-hush - or dark - money.

With mayoral candidates having a tough time raising money, this could be the city's first election where the amount of money "independent" groups spend exceeds the amount candidates raise.

As I said, enjoy the sunshine while it lasts.

Although progress during the last eight years may be good by Philadelphia standards, it doesn't begin to solve the real issue that ails the city's political culture. Philadelphia is a closed shop. Decisions are made by a few for the few and out of view.

The reason is simple: Philadelphia is a one-party town and has been for six decades, with each passing election making it more so. The loyal opposition - the local Republican Party - deserves much of the blame. It allowed itself to atrophy by fielding lackluster candidates and settling for patronage crumbs. Though new local GOP leadership has been showing signs of a pulse, frankly it's too late: The party is over.

As a result, we are stuck with a corrosive system that disenfranchises a large number of people - Republicans and independents - from participating in selecting the next mayor. The mayor is chosen not in the November general election but in the Democratic primary in the spring. This discourages quality people - Republicans and independents - from jumping into the fray unless they like to bungee-jump without the cord.

In short, the primary has become the general. Rest assured that the day after the primary, the dark money will dissipate and contributors will gather at the primary winner's doorstep to deliver campaign checks.

If the objective of ethics reform is to ensure an open, competitive process in who governs and how so the best decisions can be made for the most people, not for or by a privileged few, then true ethics reform must also include how we elect our mayor.

Thankfully, there is a way: nonpartisan elections. This is the way 80 percent of America's cities elect their officials. Republicans, Democrats, independents, and others all vote in the same election for mayor. Even Chicago, as rough-and-tumble a Democratic town as there is, has nonpartisan elections. So does Boston, home of historically powerful Democrats like Tip O'Neill and the Kennedys. So do major cities like Houston, Phoenix, and San Francisco.

Allowing all registered voters to have an equal say in who their mayor will be will increase competition, attract more serious candidates, encourage greater turnout, and stimulate more robust and substantive discussion of the issues.

The hefty donors who claim they want better government should fund a campaign to bring nonpartisan elections to Philadelphia. Forget the dark money. Use your money, instead, to shed light on how we can open up the political process and make Philadelphia a better city along the way.

Phil Goldsmith has been managing director of Philadelphia and chief executive officer of the Philadelphia School District.