Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SgtKetchup t1_itpq37x wrote

>Philadelphia’s charter requires city officeholders resign their posts before seeking higher office.

What's the point of this? Seems like it mostly serves to reduce the candidate pool and assist incumbents (when there is one). Speaking generally, this also means we'll lose 4-5 good city council people, just to elect 1 mayor.

EDIT: Debating whether the specific council members who are resigning are "good" or not does not answer the question here, and should not factor into the debate about this rule existing.

65

oliver_babish t1_itptbdm wrote

It is intended to keep office holders focused on the job they have and not the job they want, but it is really stupid and fails to take into account but not everybody has worked in investment banking before entering public life and can afford to run for office without a salary, which sets up messy situations like what Parker is now doing.

48

fritolazee t1_itpuldi wrote

What is Parker up to?

5

oliver_babish t1_itpwkv2 wrote

Inq 9-28:

Cherelle Parker resigned from her City Council seat to run in next year’s mayoral election in the first week of September.

Twelve days later, she became a Harrisburg lobbyist. ...

Aren Platt, a senior adviser to Parker’s campaign, said Parker is highly qualified for her new role, which he described as an advisory position in which she offers guidance to the lobbying firms’ leaders but does not directly lobby state officials.

He added that Parker, a single mother who has a 10-year-old son, needed income after resigning from Council to run in the mayor’s race.

“She is incredibly highly thought of in Harrisburg,” Platt said. “She is a single mother. She does need income. She started talking with old friends at Rooney Novak Isenhour who actually offered her a position.”

33

fritolazee t1_itqre3m wrote

This was really interesting and helpful, thanks!

8

TheTwoOneFive t1_itpus09 wrote

I used to support it but the more I've thought about it over the years, it is really stupid. In addition to the reasons others here listed, it reduces the chance of stronger Philadelphia influence at the state & federal level. We might have had a Nutter governorship had he been able to run in 2014 without resigning, as an example.

41

iadtyjwu t1_itpqla9 wrote

Who are the good ones we are losing?

39

KFCConspiracy t1_itpxel7 wrote

Domb's pretty good. Rhynhart's very good.

12

iadtyjwu t1_itpy1z6 wrote

Dombs good on council? Reinhart is not a Councilmember.

4

KFCConspiracy t1_itpykhf wrote

Rhynhart has to resign to run. She's not on council, but she does have to resign which is an issue here. She's great at her job as Controller.

I like Domb, although I don't agree with him all the time, he seems to be interested in reforms and less in machine politics than most of the lot.

18

lordredsnake t1_itr0orz wrote

Rhynhart only sought the controller job as a stepping stone to a mayoral run. This was clear as day from the outset. She wasn't going to stay on as a career city controller.

1

SgtKetchup t1_itpwm36 wrote

Are you saying the point is just to create churn? All city councilpeople are bad and should be replaced?

I don't care about whoever is specifically running now, I am asking generally about why this rule exists.

3

iadtyjwu t1_itpxzw4 wrote

I'm asking who is a good Councilmember we are losing? Who are the good ones? We need more competency out of our elected officials.

2

alexgalt t1_itpr4la wrote

  1. Running for office is a full time job and you will completely neglect the current one (which leads to mistakes and inaction)
  2. There are many conflicts of interest that arise between doing your current job with the current administration and campaigning to replace said administration. That can lead to decisions made for the wrong reason.

Both of these are bad for taxpayers who want to make sure that everyone is working hard and fairly while in whatever office they were elected into.

16

PHL852 t1_itqc7uj wrote

People not running for office are currently neglecting their positions. I don’t like how the few component people had to quit city council/controller office to maybe get elected. Bad system.

11

Haruomi_Sportsman t1_itreuqy wrote

>1. Running for office is a full time job and you will completely neglect the current one (which leads to mistakes and inaction)

Would hate for anyone in city council to make mistakes or be unable to act

2

tet3 t1_itrgpj4 wrote

If you're At-Large or get a legit primary opponent, you have to campaign, too. But don't have to resign.

I personally think the downsides of having (in-effect) DCC-selected replacement council members, who then are "incumbents" in the regular cycle, and having so many top offices empty out at once, are worse than the downsides that resign-to-run is supposed to prevent.

1

BlackWidowLooks t1_itqkjvz wrote

It was originally put into effect as an ethics measure but what it really does is keep the political field full of rich people IMO.

Allan Domb has no problem dropping his council salary to run, of course, but city workers in the field, who are the ones implementing these policies, rules and budgets and seeing how they play out, are firefighters, sanitation workers, clerks, library employees, tech workers, etc who need the paycheck their job provides and couldn't afford to quit and run for any kind of office (even ward offices), despite having the most first hand knowledge of what's working and what's broken.

It requires a ballot measure to make any change to the home rule charter, and council must vote to approve any ballot measure put forward, so somehow anytime it's come up it hasn't passed council....

5

TreeMac12 t1_itptz1m wrote

>What's the point of this?

I wish they'd all run.

1