Surprise! Philadelphia Council Drafts New Ethics Bills

Last December, I listed the major recommendations of Philadelphia's Task Force on Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform in its 58-page report.

According to an article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, just three months later, fifteen of seventeen city council members have co-sponsored a series of ethics reform bills. That sounds like good, fast work that deserves some serious applause.

But there are some big question marks. One is that none of the bills are available online. Each bill is given a bill-less page (1  2  3  4   5; also see the March 4 council minutes for a full list of the bills and sponsors), and in one case there is even a link to a bill, but the link doesn't work. So I am dependent, for now, on what I read in the newspaper.

Another big question mark is why the bills came out of nowhere. The mayor, set to give his big budget address, was blindsided by the bills, as was the ethics board and the ethics task force. A series of ethics bills proposed in 2008, and voluntarily put aside until after the task force reported, were apparently stripped of many of their stricter requirements, and its sponsor was not part of the process of drafting the new bills.

Considering that transparency is central to government ethics, and that there had been a public task force report supported by the mayor, it's odd that these ethics bills were surrounded by secrecy. And that they came out with such a large council majority, which will be able to rush the bills through without sufficient discussion of complex issues. After all, will many people fault the council for voting in favor of stronger ethics measures?

Below is the list of task force recommendations, and how they have been included in or left out of the new ethics bills, as far as I can tell. In addition, there are two bills dealing with political contributions to legal defense, inauguration, and transition committees, a topic that did not appear in my list of task force recommendations.

Make the inspector general an independent office able to investigate elected officials other than the mayor.
Yes, except for the council.

Make ethics rules applicable to all city officials and employees. Now some rules apply only to the executive branch.
Not clear.

Require lobbyists to register and disclose their activities.
Yes.

Ensure the ethics board's budget (it's up for renewal in a couple of weeks).
Not clear.

Make campaign finance data easily available and searchable.
Not clear.

Change from annual contribution limits to election-cycle limits (annual limits favor incumbents).
No.

Get rid of the "death penalty" sanction, which disqualifies any ethics violator from holding office or working for the city.
Yes.

Provide whistleblower protection.
Not clear.

Clarify ethics code definitions.
Not clear.

Add clear rules and transparency to the waiver process.
Not clear.

Liberalize the prohibitions on political activity, e.g., allow city workers to make campaign contributions.
Yes, and participate in campaigns outside of work time (the mayor strongly opposes this)

Create a select citizens commission to make recommendations regarding a possible public campaign financing program.
Doesn't appear to do this.

Reportedly, the new ethics bills also greatly increase contribution limits for both individuals and PACs, and greatly reduce penalties for ethics violations. In other words, it's not clear which direction the council is going with its ethics reforms.

The 2008 ethics bills covered areas apparently not included in the new ethics bills, including nepotism, outside employment, and acceptance of gifts, and they would have changed contribution limits from per year to per election cycle, as the task force later recommended. These old bills appear to still be technically alive, but with nearly all the council members co-sponsoring the new bills, and the sponsor of the old bills left out of the process, it appears that there will not be any negotiating.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---