Is that fair to say? PROFESSOR KREIMER: The concern 119 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 that the law be administered impartially is most salient with respect to individuals who have substantial discretion on how the law is enforced. To an individual who has essentially, as you say, an administerial function, that concern really is not terribly pressing and largely drops out.
So if we were to adopt standards akin to the federal Hatch Act, maybe even including, say, L&I inspectors, Streets inspectors, anybody who has a sort of oversight or any kind of an adjudicatory enforcement role within government into the more restrictive standard, do you think that would meet the Hatch Act? We would be -- PROFESSOR KREIMER: It would certainly be consistent --
I'm sorry. I don't mean the Hatch Act. PROFESSOR KREIMER: It would be consistent with the First Amendment concerns that the impositions on 120 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 employees be tailored to the public dangers imposed by their potential speech.
That's great. Professor, I really appreciate you coming in today. I don't know if anybody else has any questions.
Yes. Professor Kreimer, I just want to get your opinion on allowing City employees to be more active in a political party. PROFESSOR KREIMER: Are you asking for my opinion as a matter of constitutional law or my opinion just as a --
Yeah. PROFESSOR KREIMER: Certainly there is no constitutional objection to allowing employees to be more active. To the extent that the experience with 121 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 political activities by particularly administerial employees shows no history or threat to legitimate public policy, it seems to me that the First Amendment casts doubt on the exclusion. That said, I have to say that at least as late as 1973, the Supreme Court upheld the Hatch Act, which broadly prohibited active management of political campaigns.
Okay. So that would -- in your opinion, then, you would -- PROFESSOR KREIMER: In my opinion, the biggest objection to the current standard is the one that limits the ability to engage in speech and particularly publication of speech about political affairs. There are concerns, but I -- without knowing more about the specific history of Philadelphia and what the experience of other cities are, I would be reluctant to say it's unconstitutional 122 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 to exclude employees from activity in active management of political campaigns.
Thank you. So I guess it's your advice to this body to look at the federal Hatch Act and what its impact has been in terms of -- PROFESSOR KREIMER: I would -- yes -- I -- the federal Hatch Act and the experience of other cities, I think. That's right.
That's right. And with respect to -- are you drawing a distinction between active management of political campaigns and active -- being active in a political party? PROFESSOR KREIMER: Well, the Hatch Act is -- was phrased in terms 123 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 of... active party in political management or political campaigns. It did not speak specifically about political parties. So I guess the clearest concern is political campaigns. That said, as a practical matter, active involvement in political parties by enforcement officials raises concerns. The idea that the ward committeeman is also the L&I inspector who would cut a break to people he feels are likely to vote in favor of his party is a quite legitimate concern.
I agree with that completely. And, as we said, we're looking at more restrictive and less restrictive standards. With respect to the administerial employee, you don't feel the same way? PROFESSOR KREIMER: That concern clearly would not be there.
Thank 124 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 you. Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and I understand you actually live in the 4th Councilmatic District, which I think is meritorious of mentioning. I just thought so. I would be interested in understanding because there's such a cloud about the difference between what the Hatch Act allows at the federal level. If we precede, it will -- if we could, would it allow, for example, a person from DHS who took issue with something, a policy there, from writing a letter about supporting an issue? Right now, we can do that, correct? I mean if someone in DHS wanted to write a letter of protest about a public policy matter, they can do that. PROFESSOR KREIMER: As I understand it, even under the interpretation of the current City 125 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 Charter, if there's not a reference to a political campaign, you could write that.
Currently, if that same said employee liked one of the Mayor's positions, a candidate on the issue of DHS, today they couldn't express that in a blog and say, "I'm going to vote for 'so-and-so' because he's" -- PROFESSOR KREIMER: If I understand the way that the current regulations are written, what they say is -- let me pull that out. What they say is that an employee may not write for publication or publish any letter, article, signed or unsigned, in favor of or against any political party, body, or candidate for office.
So -- PROFESSOR KREIMER: So that if an employee -- if a clerk in DHS wanted to publish a blog post saying, "I don't like Mayor Nutter's approach to civil service reform," and Mayor Nutter was 126 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 running for office, I think they would put themselves at risk.
That's important. No matter what we do in the workplace, I guess the pendulum of public opinion and what is appropriate political involvement swings back and forth, and people tighten it up a little bit about fears. Like no matter what we do in the workplace, you can't express a button, we would not be allowed to wear a "Bill Green for Mayor button," for example, ever in the workplace, correct? PROFESSOR KREIMER: That would be a function of what ordinance Council decides to write. They certainly could prohibit it within the current sets of concerns because the Supreme Court currently says that producing workplace disagreement to the extent that the government constrains what people do in the workplace, it's 127 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 certainly within the sphere of legitimate employer concern.
And, obviously, we would want protections against a individual, same individual, in the course of dispersing or giving resources or making decisions in the workplace, it could never be politically motivated to -- PROFESSOR KREIMER: That's exactly the concern that the Supreme Court says is both legitimate. And, indeed, I would think at this point, political retaliation against opponents would itself violate the Constitution.
And, obviously, low-hanging fruit like hiring, we wouldn't want to have anybody who was voting for Bill Green would be hired in this department as opposed to someone voting for Bill Greenlee. So donations, currently, they can make -- people can write a check? PROFESSOR KREIMER: If they're 128 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 not members of the Police Department.
Okay. And -- PROFESSOR KREIMER: Again, I'm working from the statute -- the provisions that I've been given, so --
And working on someone's campaign, so if Wilson Goode's employee decided they wanted to go work on Bill Green's campaign after work, would they be allowed to do that? PROFESSOR KREIMER: Uh... Are you saying an employee of the Department of Human Services?
Just for the record, Councilman Goode said he would not permit that. (Laughter.)
So if there were an employee of the Department of Human Services and they, at 5 o'clock, punched out and walked into the campaign office, would they be in violation? 129 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 PROFESSOR KREIMER: Right now, they could not engage in that activity.
Thank you. Okay, thank you, Professor. I appreciate the time very much. PROFESSOR KREIMER: Okay.
The next witness on this bill is Mr. Armbrister again. (Witness comes forward.)
Mr. Armbrister, we have again your written testimony. This one is not short. But, again, if you could just summarize, we'd appreciate it, and we may have some questions on it.
I will certainly try, Councilman, but I think, notwithstanding the announcement you made earlier, if you don't mind, if I could at least try to get to some of the details of my testimony. 130 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139
Good afternoon, Chairman Greenlee and members of the committee. My name is Clarence Armbrister; I'm Chief of Staff to Mayor Michael Nutter. I'm here today to testify on behalf of the Nutter Administration on Bill No. 100121 and Resolution 100139. I did hear the chairman's announcement at the beginning of this particular hearing and acknowledging that the sponsor would like to make some modifications in scheduling as well as in one of the companion bills. However, I think it's important that today's testimony on behalf of the Administration be taken in the context of what we knew before we got here today. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 it goes along to recognize the important facts that you acknowledged at the beginning of this hearing. But this proposal, which was introduced as part of a package of ethics reforms bill in the wake of recommendations by the Task Force on Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform made in December, we are in agreement with the view of the Task Force that some reforms in the area of allowing greater political expression by employees are indeed worthwhile. But this current proposal would potentially open the door to wholesale elimination of the Charter's strong protection against injecting politics and political-party activity into the daily operation of government. That, in our view, would not be reform; that would be regression. It would be a major step backwards. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 and we want to respectfully urge the Council committee to table it for further consideration and collaboration or to reject it outright. And, again, I do hereby acknowledge the intention of the sponsor to slow down. Although it is not before this committee today for consideration, my testimony will necessarily refer to a companion bill, Bill No. 100128, to which you referred earlier, which Council introduced the same day as Resolution 15 100139 and Bill No. 100121. This companion bill, if authorized by the legislation before the committee today, would significantly change the law with respect to how political activities of employees are regulated within the City of Philadelphia. These potential changes causing the Administration grave concern are a significant reason for the position we take today. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 And we really do look forward to working with the Councilman in future in modifying that bill as well. First, there's nothing in the Charter's political-activities restrictions that is fundamentally flawed or broken. The rules have been included in the Charter for nearly sixty years for a reason -- to require the City's political leaders, if elected officials, to return to the voters when they want to change these kinds of rules. Although there are some important and practical changes of the rules that we would support, we are not in support of moving the authority to take those kinds of changes away from the voters. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 attorneys, health and L&I inspectors, supervisors in departments throughout the City -- should be actively involved in the affairs of political candidates and parties. The required separation which protects both the public and the employees themselves has served the City well for almost sixty years and should not be changed now. What does this change do? Let me first address what the proposal would do. The proposed Charter change would take away, we believe, voters' rights to vote on eliminating or revising a group of Home Rule Charter relating to political activity in City government. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 part in the management or affairs of any political party or political campaign. Obviously, if it passes and this is subject to change, the rules along the lines of the companion bill, Ordinance 100128, introduced in Council, City employees could take an active part in political campaigns of a candidate or serve as a committee person or a ward leader in a political party.
The change would also give the Council the authority to: 1. Allow City officials and City employees to engage in political fundraising; 2. Allow a candidate and political committees to solicit political contributions from civil service employees; 3. Allow police officers and firefighters to make political contributions; and 4. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 elected officials running for reelection to resign from their position before running for elective office. Although rules regarding political expression could be relaxed, the political-activities rules are really not fundamentally flawed. Let me begin to explain our concerns with this portion of the proposal. A common misconception about the Charter's political-activities restrictions are that they are unsound legally. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between activity and political parties and campaigns on the one hand and political expression on the other. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 our yards. It may be that these interpretations have been too strict with respect to things like buttons and lawn signs. We agree with the Task Force that it would make sense for the Board of Ethics, the body that now has jurisdiction over these issue, to revisit the issue and perhaps, by regulation or advisory opinion, provide for leeway in this area for City employees. But any suggestion that our rules are flat-out unconstitutional is simply wrong. And I would like to submit for the record today an opinion of the City Solicitor explaining that our rules are entirely defensible, and similar federal rules in place before the Hatch Act, as amended in 1993, have been upheld by the US Supreme Court. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 reported in 1973 by the Supreme Court. And the Ethics Task Force has agreed with this interpretation. Indeed, apart from a challenge to a specific rule prohibiting political campaign contributions by firefighters, we're not aware of any challenges by any City employees in sixty years to our local rules. If our rules are so plainly unconstitutional, elimination of them by court challenge would be fairly straightforward. So the idea that we somehow need to change the rules because of, quote/unquote, constitutional validity really disguises that this was really a policy-based decision. We can talk about reinterpreting rules that have been taken too far or make modest practical changes, but it is not so difficult to change the Charter. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 will be multiple referenda on this year's ballot. That we should be potentially completely removing these rules from the Charter and taking away from voters the authority to directly approve changes in the political-activities rules. We are also opposed to allowing the mixture of activities with the daily operation of government. There are, of course, real reasons for having a strict separation between substantive political activity and the day-to-day operations of government and why we have the political-activities restrictions in our Charter. Again, even the US Supreme Court and the Congress recognize that in their opinions and laws respectfully. The Charter was adopted after a long reform movement that grew from a series of crises in the early part of the 20th century. During this period, Philadelphia was dominated by the Republican political machine. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 this is just our city's history, and it occurred a long time ago. So much so that party officials and not the elected officers like the Mayor and members of Council controlled the day-to-day operations of City government, in part circumventing weak civil service rules to replace party loyalists throughout the government. " During that era, with employees allowed to, and even required to, participate in local campaigns to support the political machine, the political establishment and operation of government were one in the same.
So I'll then just move on with my testimony. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 control of any of the day-to-day operations of City government. The first is a strong civil service system to prevent purely patronage employment, and the second is a political-activities restriction contained in Section 10107 of the Charter, at issue here today. And as Councilman Kenney has pointed out in the previous hearing, our concern is often not with this Council, this good Council might have the ability to provide good leadership in this area, but we're not sure about future councils. As I have said, in itself, this Charter change would not establish political-activities rules. Bill 100128, however, is a companion ordinance that was introduced on March 4th at the same time as this Charter proposal. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 now acknowledge that the Council is going to revisit that bill. But in its current form, it would, among other things, make significant changes to currently political-activity restrictions. Eliminate the ban on political activity by City employees. This would also allow all City employees to work on political campaigns for candidates for City office as well as statewide and federal office. It would permit all City employees to be active members of political parties and become committee persons and ward leaders. A significant downside to allowing political work by City employees is a potential erosion of public confidence in government. We understand that proposed rules would only allow political work when someone is off duty and would prohibit the use of most City resources for such work. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 No matter how hard responsible city officials and employees work to keep politics out of our day-to-day work for the City and no matter how vigorously we enforce the separation of use of the workplace for political activities, it would be impossible to persuade a rightfully skeptical public that this separation will be maintained. That's even putting aside the enforcement nightmare of trying to police the use of City resources for political activities. If a decision-maker is politically active particularly in the local political community, it would be very easy for a citizen who is denied a permit or who does not get a City contract to claim that politics played a part of that decision. And I think that that was acknowledged during the colloquy between the previous witness and Councilman Green, particularly in the area of Licenses and Inspections, among other things. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 And folks will find it very difficult to keep political influence, or the perceptions of such influence, out of their day-to-day discretionary decisions. If a social worker at DHS is a committee person and knows that a loyal party worker is suspected of neglect of his or her child, there could be subtle, or perhaps not so subtle, pressures to give greater weight to the party worker at the risk of expense to the best interests of the child than if the social worker had to connection to the political system. Similarly for the BRT, which is explained in the testimony, as well as the DA's Office. There was a lot of discussion regarding the Hatch Act that I'd like to address very quickly. There will be claims that since the more liberal Hatch Act appears to work in the federal system, they should apply here as well. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 First, it is important to note that the federal law as a whole imposes far more restrictions on many, many classes of government employees, an approach which I understand the sponsor of the bill is likely to at least examine going forward, such as -- but these restrictions folks such as law enforcement personnel and others. More importantly, most federal work does not take place directly in our communities. By contrast, the work of City government is tied on a day-to-day basis with the lives of our citizens.
We in City government know our neighbors, and they are quick to let us know about their immediate problems, many of which relate to the work of the City. This is, of course, not to say that politics does not play a necessary and important part in our government. The Mayor is a ward leaders; many members of Council are ward leaders as well. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 that. But decision-making for rank-and-file employees should not be subject to political considerations, and the public should not perceive that it is. Now I'd like to move down to the bottom of regarding employees being engaged in campaign and party work. By allowing City officials and City employees to engage in campaign and party work, we will inevitably be exposing those employees who choose to stay out of politics to both subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, pressures. Employees who just want to do their jobs in the best interests of the City would inevitably feel uncomfortable if their bosses or colleagues are openly involved in political campaigns. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 less favorable work assignments or performance reviews. If an employee openly supports the same candidates the supervisor supports, others will always assume that a promotion or other favorable treatment resulted from that support. We have not heard a clamoring among employees or the citizens of the City for any loosening of the current restrictions. Undoubtedly, many employees believe restrictions on political expression are too extensive; and, as I've said, they may have a point there. There probably are some who would like to be involved in campaigns, whether at the local, state, or federal level, and we respect that. But in general, we believe most City employees and City officials are proud to work in the government and know clearly the line between politics and public service. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 cannot support a proposal that has a potential to lead to a crisis in the morale of the City workforce. The other problems noted in the proposal, which reflect primarily to 100128 are noted in my testimony, and I won't read through them now. But I'd just like to conclude by saying we acknowledge there may be flaws in the current political expression restrictions. I urge Council to give serious consideration to fixing anything that truly needs to be addressed with respect to political expression restrictions. We should not rush, and this body apparently has agreed with that, to dramatically alter the rules regarding political-activity restrictions. 10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 evisceration of strong and sound protection from political interference in the workings of government, especially when viewed in the context of the companion legislation, Bill No. 100128. We thank you for modifying your timetable, and I am hopeful that this will allow the Council and the Administration to work together on the more narrow, targeted, and practical changes that continue the real reform agenda this Council has pursued over the past few years. Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the Administration, and I'll be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Armbrister. Not surprisingly, there are some questions up here. I'll first recognize Councilman Kenney.
Thank you very much. 150 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 If we were dismantling or attempting to dismantle the civil service system, I would totally agree with your testimony, but that's not the case. And one of the things that struck me during the course of your testimony -- and I do understand that the Police Commissioner should not be ward leader; I got that. But when the Mayor's a ward leader, which I respect and admire, it's a hard argument to make that clear. I recognize the Police Commissioner has responsibilities that deal with law enforcement and other things like direct police protection, but the Mayor has similar authority -- or actually more authority than the Police Commissioner. So the fact that the Mayor's a ward leader to me indicates that your thought logic is somewhat flawed, with all due respect, 'cause we're friends and we have friendly conversation. 151 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 The other thing that kind of makes me think a little bit about your position is, what is your definition of a committee person? I mean, what do you think a committee person does that would so erode the confidence of the public? To me -- what is your definition of a committee person?
It's not that the -- there are a couple of different levels. Let me first deal with the first part of the question you raised regarding the ward leaders. The Mayor, as an elected official, is inherently political, and I think that that really distinguishes you and the Mayor and others --
-- who are elected. But he is, by definition, elected. I mean, he is elected; the Commissioner is not elected. And the 152 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 Mayor does not have direct day-to-day responsibility for the administration of policing in the City.
But if the Mayor is a ward leader, has a neighboring ward that he's friendly with, and there's a problem going on in a particular business strip, the Mayor has the ability to call Deputy Commissioner Ross or Commissioner Ramsey and say, You know what? I need a little attention over there 'cause people are complaining really loud, and I need to not only make sure that people are safe but I need to make sure that these people aren't angry with me. I mean, do you find that inherently evil?
Well, not 153 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 evil; "evil" is too strong a word.
The cloud not of the Mayor making the call but of the administration of decisions by police officers on the street.
And that's all -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
Anybody can put handcuffs on me or shoot me; I don't necessarily need them to be political, unless they want to express their political views with a lawn sign or contribute to a PAC that supports their issues. 154 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 See, let me go from the committee person up first. These are folks who get elected and are basically service people in their community. I mean, they are the ones who are feet on the ground and deal with problems in the community. The overwhelming number of committee people are like that and care about their communities throughout the City. If they're a City employee and they are doing this on their own time and are more engaged and more involved in their neighborhood and then also have responsibilities to carry out their City duties, isn't that something that complements each other? I mean, isn't that something you want your City employers, your teachers, your folks that work for the government involved in your neighborhood to knowing what's going on and how they can serve people better? It's almost like they serve 155 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 people at work all day, and then they go home at night for free and serve them some more. What is wrong with that?
There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but the potential abuse is those who feel that that work would come into the -- that line would be blurred, and it would come into the workplace, particularly for those employees who don't want to be active.
If I feel that my progress report, my evaluation is done because of some other reason, whether it's politics or personality or whatever, I have rights of appeal that I can follow through with that. I don't think being a committee person in your neighborhood is going to 156 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 be an undue influence on every other employee in that department to do the same. For example, if I run a rec center, and there's an open seat for mayor, and this particular candidate for mayor is talking wonderful things about what he or she doing going to do for recreation in the City, and I want to have a coffee klatch in my house on a Saturday afternoon to let people know what that person's saying, that erodes the public's confidence?
But let me take that -- give one further example. What if you are a supervisor and you asked your subordinates to join you for that coffee klatch?
On their own time, right. And whether they wanted to or not, they might feel some pressure to. And that's really what is important. 157 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 It's in part designed to help protect those who don't want to participate as well.
But you said earlier in your opinion testimony that it's a combination of political restrictions and civil service is what cleaned up the mess of the earlier 20th century.
So what we're saying is that -- what I believe is that folks who are more engage, more involved, know what's going on, know where the bad problems in the community are, know where the kids need some help, I think that that makes a person a better employee, not necessarily someone who erodes the public's confidence.
And if I could just add one thing. I mean, you talk about the history, Mr. Armbrister, 158 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 of why this, you know, Charter was established and all. I mean, wasn't the biggest problem, as Councilman Kenney alluded to, the problems that you talked about in your testimony, because of the lack of civil service regulations? I mean, we're not talking about taking any of them away, you know. So I guess that was the real problem, was it not?
That was certainly one of the problems, but I think early on, the institution of the civil service system did not immediately solve a lot of the issues that were described.
Thank you. Just following up on Councilman Kenney's point. Your testimony talks a lot about perceptions and appearances. 159 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 And I would agree, you know, that we have to, you know, try to make it clear to the public that the decisions that are being made are the right decisions for the right reasons because -- not because of any undue political influence. So don't you think the Mayor should resign as ward leader to avoid those appearances and perceptions?
Okay. Just -- thank you. So you talk about the enforcement nightmare of trying to police the use of City resources for politics. What is the law currently today? Can people be politically active on duty and use City resources?
You said, can people be politically active on duty? Was that the question? 160 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139
Because the extension -- because if we extend their ability to be politically active, which they can't do now, I mean, that would be the big difference, is that they can't be politically active now.
Off, right. They can't be politically active on duty under either scenario.
No, no, no. 20 I'm saying if you extend it to off-duty, then the question as to when someone's on or off duty could come into question. I mean, some people's responsibilities --
I mean, 161 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 right now, you don't really know how to police that. As you point out, it's an enforcement nightmare; there's no way for you to know which of our 23,000 employees is, say, printing out even a community flyer let alone a political flyer or, you know, something like that, using City resources.
Right. What would you think of a proposal where, if you were politically active -- and bear in mind that despite your testimony -- and I realize you didn't have a chance to revise it the last minute, we're looking at a clear bifurcation here more along the lines of the federal system --
-- which probably could include supervisors and where there's actual enforcement. So probably not supervisors of clerk- typists. But, you know, we can have a 162 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 discussion about that. But given that -- sorry, I went onto speech mode and lost my question. But the... hold on a second. So in the ten pages of your testimony you, I guess, looked at this issue very hard. What existing laws exist that would prevent every, you know, nightmare scenario that you raised in your testimony? In other words, what laws are in place to prevent an employee asking another employee for a contribution; is that currently illegal? Other than --
Other than the political activities restrictions, is there a law against macing in Pennsylvania?
But that's not my question. 163 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 Other than the Charter is there a law against macing?
Yes, there is. Would a DHS worker face civil and criminal activities if, for example, that person succumbs to political influence and did not take a child away from another political worker?
I would assume that would be a dereliction of their duties.
Yeah, right, okay. So, like, there are already in place laws that prevent basically every single one of --
But, Councilman, there may be laws in place, but I think what we're talking here is about the environment, that I think there is a fundamental shift in the environment where today, people are not permitted to 164 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 engage in political activity. And I just want to make it clear so that everyone understand the administration's position, we are willing to concede that there are some portions of the Charter that are probably too strictly interpreted regarding expression. So I just want to make that clear for the record. But our view, with respect to political activity, we think that that's a sea change in terms of perception and environment. And so, when you change the environment, we think that there is a potential for many of those scenarios to possibly occur, which might not be ripe to occur in the current environment. And that's really the point that we're trying to make.
No. Well, I think we actually have certain evidence that it actually occurred at least over, 165 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 you know, fifty years ago.
Well, with respect to the Inspector General's recent report, how many of those people who are disciplined in that report were civil service?
I couldn't tell you, but we could get that information for you.
Let me just try this one more time. When you talk about fifty years ago -- and I know Councilman Goode is waiting to ask a question, but there wasn't those protections or the laws that are there now, were there, Mr. Armbrister? I mean, I don't think we can keep talking about -- actually, it's, yeah, almost sixty years now since this charter has been enacted. I don't think 166 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 we can say because it was bad back then, there were a lot of things done wrong, that we just have to stick to those same rules. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Again, because, as has been pointed out a couple times, the civil service regulations were not in effect back then. And as Councilman Green said, a lot of things you're concerned about are illegal now, would be illegal if this bill was put in. They're against the law; they're not just against the Charter; they're against the law.
I think the concern is the environmental context in which I just tried to describe to Councilman Green in my answer to him that I think it's really a sea change in the environment, which could potentially adversely affect our ability to contain what we have enjoyed for the last sixty years. And that's really our concern.
167 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Armbrister, what percentage of your testimony would you say was actually against the companion bill 8 rather than the Charter change?
I'm not sure I would put a percentage on it. I think that they are almost inextricably intertwined.
Is it safe to say that if the Charter was amended by the bill and resolution before the committee right now, that it in fact would do nothing without an amendment to the Philadelphia Code?
It would authorize Council to adopt ordinances such as 1000128.
But it would do nothing just for the passage of the Charter amendment.
That is 168 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 correct, but it would authorize the Council to adopt that type of ordinance, that's correct.
So there's nothing that Council could do for a companion bill, not the bill that is associated with this legislation now, that would be acceptable to the Administration.
No, I didn't say that. You said, is there nothing that Council could do --
In the form of a companion bill to the Charter legislation that would be acceptable to the Administration.
I think one of the tenets of our concern about the construction of how Council has gone about this is that we are removing from the voters the ability to make these decisions on some of these big matters. It's the Administration's view that if we wanted to change the 169 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 Charter -- for example, just to give you an example, to allow police officers to make contributions, that we should have a specific provision, a Charter change for that. We think, much like Councilman Kenney said, you know, this body, this particular Council body may be responsible. We're not sure about future Council bodies in terms of their responsibility for --
You mean the future Council bodies that would be elected by the people.
Well, they certainly are elected by the people, but why not give the people an opportunity to directly weigh in on those issues which they've done under this Charter for the last sixty years.
How would you characterize voter turnout in Philadelphia?
It depends on 170 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 the election and the issue.
Again, it depends on the issue. I don't know if people are apathetic. I don't know why we don't get a lot of people to --
Presumably? What role... might committee people play in voter turnout?
I've never been a committee person, so I'm not sure, but I assume that they'd help get the vote out for their particular candidate.
If you have -- well, not just for a particular candidate -- 171 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139
-- is it possible that when there is low voter turnout, it's because of the lack of confidence in government?
If that were the reason, how do you restore the type of confidence?
You try to restore confidence in government. You said if there was lack of government [sic], presumably you would try to restore confidence in government, if that's supposition of your question.
Actually, at the end of the day, what I'm actually inferring is, just as you say that sixty years under this Charter provision has worked, one might make the argument that 172 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 it does not work, that what it has done to some extent is create disconnect between the government and political process. In some cases, what it might do -- and I've actually seen it in a number of different instances, where you will have government officials who actually believe that a committee person request is somehow wrong because that person has a political position as opposed to that person just being someone who is advocating on behalf of their community. So might it be possible that the better way to restore confidence in government, to create a better connection between the voters, who are also taxpayers in government, is to create an honest and positive relationship between government and the voters?
I mean, clearly, the relationship between the government and the voters is to try to 173 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 instill confidence, honesty, integrity; those certainly are the hallmarks certainly of what we think is our administration, and we've had a very successful partnership with this Council in doing that. I mean, you've been very helpful to us in trying the make sure that that happens. Whether or not -- and I guess this is the point of your question -- having a committee person be able to work for the City restores confidence in government, I'm not willing to make that leap.
Isn't it more advantageous to have a neighbor reaching out to other neighbors?
Clearly. I think it was Councilman Kenney's point about, you know committee people and people who are involved in their government and city, we all want that. Obviously, if people were more involved, you know, maybe a lot of our problems 174 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 would be fewer. But to change what we believe has been a system that's worked, in which 23,000 employees out of a population of what, a million and a half people who knowingly, when they take these jobs, realize that they may be limited in some respect in their ability to participate in the political process is a leap that this administration, at least for now, is not willing to take.
I understand that, but I'm saying on the other hand, it's not just a matter of limiting those employees and that being part of their understanding when they're hired. The issue is whether you're actually limiting the effectiveness of government.
And I would submit that I don't think we've limited the effective of matters of government, but I understand your point, but I don't agree with that necessarily.
And in an 175 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 ideal world, wouldn't we want neighbors across the City engaged with other neighbors, promoting the government as something that people should be involved with? In other words, asking them to do more than just push a button on Election Day, but to stay connected.
Clearly, we want people connected. But in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to worry about, you know, prosecuting people who do wrong things; we wouldn't have to worry about a lot of things in an ideal world. And, unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. And our position isn't because we're concerned of undermining any confidence in government. We think, in many respects, the current situation actually restores government. One of the issues that you raised about whether or not, you know, when committee people or people who are going to go political ask for things to 176 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 get done, clearly, it is the position of our administration that those people shouldn't be prejudged in regard. I mean, people who ask for service, we intend to give them service whether, you know, they are supporters or not, because that's what we're here to do; we're here to serve. But as you said, you know, and I think, as Councilman Kenney said earlier, you know, we may not always be in office; you may have a different administration that doesn't have that view. And we strongly believe that the Charter, which is our City constitution, should be, when it is, in fact, changed, the voters should have an opportunity to look specifically at those provisions. And we would just submit that these changes as currently proposed really takes away from the voters the ability to do that. And we would argue that they should still retain that right. 177 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139
Lastly, on a scale 0 to -- 0 being totally 4 non-political and 10 being totally 5 political -- let's start with the Mayor. 6 Where would you place the Mayor? 7
Being 8 political? This sounds like the 9 question -- I was with my daughter at the 10 pediatrician the other day, and he said, "Okay, between 0 to 10, tell me how much it hurts." I mean, the Mayor is a political person. The Mayor has been elected --
When you say -- none of them have been elected. I mean --
That's not 178 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 the question because if we're going to make the assumption that other City employees would become political if they had the right to be political, the question is: To what extent are employees political now? And I'm starting with the Mayor and going on down.
I mean -- I mean, when you say "political," I don't consider myself particularly political at all. You know, I'm here -- I got one vote. You know, many of you have run for office; I got one vote. The only person who has ever voted for me is the Mayor; I mean, he selected me to work for him. That's the extent of my politics and, I would argue, that's the same for most of the members of the Mayor's cabinet. I mean, he selected them; that's their one vote.
And those people who report directly to the Mayor's cabinet? 179 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139
Meaning commissioners and others? Again, they have the vote, you know, that the Mayor ultimately is the determiner of whether or not they continue to be an employee of this administration.
'Cause I'm trying to figure out at what point people become political.
Well, I mean, under the current rubric, they shouldn't be political other than for purposes of their own private expressions. Are you saying at what point they would become political under the new proposed language? Or are you saying at whether they're political under the current --
Well, 180 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 currently, none of them. I mean, currently, under the Charter, they shouldn't be --
I know what the rules are; that wasn't the question. And, actually, the question was: On a scale from 0 to -- 9
I don't think that they're political at all. In the context of a 0 to 10, I would say close to 0.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Armbrister, earlier, Councilman Green asked if you the Mayor should resign since he's a ward leader, 181 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 and you answered no. 3 I agree with that. I don't think there's any reason for the Mayor to resign because he's a ward leader. I think for too long -- and I'd like to go on the record as saying there are people in this city who somehow try to paint a picture of trying to give the impression that ward leaders, committee people are the scourge of the City; somehow, they're very corrupt, they're sinister, they try to, I guess, walk around reform in the City of Philadelphia, they try to avoid it. I don't think there's anything -- anything more outrageous than what people have been saying about ward leaders and committee people because for the simple fact that any candidate running for any office, whether it be judge, it be Municipal, Common Pleas, Superior, the Supreme Court, whether it be the higher offices such as a state senator or a governor or a mayor, any of 182 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 these candidates would find it very, very difficult to be even elected without the support of committee people and ward leaders, because I have never seen any of these candidates knock on doors to get their petitions filled, never. And I don't think that this is one of the things that I think ward leaders and committee people do. I think they -- they're very respected in their communities, and I think that to have any City employee to become a committee person is not the worst thing in the world; it really isn't. I think it shows that they are interested in their community and they want to help out in any way they can. I don't think the two organizations in Philadelphia -- the Republican and Democrat City committees -- I don't think they're trying to jeopardize reform in this city; I really don't. I think that City employees 183 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 should have that right, you know, and I think it's a right that at least they should be considered and not just thrown away. And that's all I have to say about that.
Thank you. And this has been -- we've whacked this around a bit, and I understand there's a philosophical difference. And I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I'm just trying to -- based on Councilman Goode's line of questioning, I'm just trying to get an idea as to the -- Councilman Goode just whispered in my ear and said, "Can anybody be zero percent political?" and I don't think that's possible. I mean, I think that in some form or another, in some way or another, 184 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 you have a political opinion, a political philosophy, a political activity --
Like, for example, exempt employees in the Administration, do they ever attend fundraisers?
Do, like, exempt employees in the Administration ever attend fundraisers for folks or --
Not typically, 185 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 no. 3
No, no, no. 10 I'm just trying to remember. I've certainly given to campaigns, but I can't think of any political fundraisers.
And, again, I don't think there's anything wrong with that either.
I think it's in the best interests of the City, from your level of vision, it's a good 186 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 thing for the City to be supportive of folks who will go to Washington and go to Harrisburg and go to other places to be helpful to us as a city, not individually.
But to be there when the City needs a tough vote, those kinds of issues. And I think that's kind of at the macro level, at the micro level. I mean, we encourage, you know, high school students; I think almost every high school in the City now has community-service requirements that people have to go out and do so many hours of community service.
I think where we separate philosophically is the view of politics as a profession or as something that erodes the public's confidence. I really -- well, that was -- I think those were words that you 187 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 used in your testimony about the erosion of public confidence. I think where we break apart on this is that I don't think that being politically active on your own time, having a coffee klatch, working in your division, being involved in, you know, fundraising for a rec center, all those things, I think, make you a better citizen and ultimately make you a better employee. So I think where we part ways is there. So I think that if higher-level political appointees who are in the government, being paid by the same taxpayer, can do good political work in helping get folks elected through their contributions, through their guidance, through their advice, elected officials who will then go where they're going and help our city, I think that's a wonderful thing. And if have City employees at a lower level who go out into our 188 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 neighborhoods and work hard to help our neighborhoods, I think it's better for everyone. And certainly there are going to be issues that the Inspector General is to going want to look at or that some supervisory individual is going to look at or the Ethics Board is going to want to look at. But I think, in general, the supposition that political activity at a neighborhood level is that dangerous I think is really overstating the facts; when at higher levels, us included -- we're elected, you're appointed, we're elected, political activities at those levels are somehow good for the future of the City. I think they're both good for the future of the City and that's where I think we part ways philosophically. So thanks.
Thank you. 189 3.15.10 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100121, RES. 100139 I know that we've been going at this for a while, and I hesitate to ask this; I'm not trying to embarrass anybody else that's here. But I know -- I think it's fair, Mr. Armbrister, to say a lot of it is -- what you're talking about is concern about the integrity of government, I guess, you would say, right? Are you concerned about some of the changes here?