From the Editors: City Council got it right — eventually

Last month, Philadelphia’s City Council overwhelmingly voted to amend the City Charter’s “resign to run” provision — which, as the name suggests, requires city officeholders to quit their job before campaigning for another. 

This month, even before the voters had a chance to approve the amendment, City Council reversed itself and pulled the proposed change off the table. It was the right thing to do.

As we noted at the time, “City Councilmembers are elected to do a job and are paid an average of $158,949 a year (plus other perks) to do it. Is it too much to ask that they do that job for 40 hours a week and not be out campaigning for a new one?”

Evidently, the solons at City Hall have been getting an earful of questions like that from their constituents, because Councilmember Isaiah Thomas, the amendment’s main sponsor, told the Inquirer’s Anna Orso, “I thought that the version we were producing previously was going to be considered a happy compromise,” he said. “And that’s not necessarily the reception that we’ve gotten back.”

It is a victory for honest government and for the reformist City Charter of 1951. It also represents a de-escalation that is rare in our politics these days. In Congress, the White House, and legislatures across the country — led by both parties — pushback from the moderate center is ignored. Partisans justify any action by their parties with a call to tribal allegiance. “We have to do this,” they say, “because we have to beat the other side at all cost — America’s future is at stake!”

The gerrymandering fight is a perfect example. Republicans in Texas and Democrats in New York (just like Democrats in Pennsylvania, before them) pressed for mid-decade changes to congressional maps to maximize their advantages. 

So where partisans in other states used to condemn the dishonesty of drawing bizarre districts to maximize one party’s advantage, now they rush to double down, pointing to the other side like children crying “they started it!” Only in Indiana did the Republicans in the state senate show any concern for the mess they were creating.

The resign-to-run issue is less partisan — people on both sides of the divide in Philly are Democrats — but the rush to abandon principle because “the other side is doing it” is the same. The other side, in this case, is state and federal officeholders. City officials feel that theirs is an unfair burden: unlike other politicians, they have to do the job they are elected to do and not spend time on the campaign trail looking for another gig at the same time.

They are correct, but the solution is not to eliminate one of the city’s few remaining good government measures: it is to impose that requirement on the other guys, too.

Pennsylvania and the federal government should amend their constitutions to match the city charter. They should make politicians do their job and not campaign for the next one at the same time.

Plenty of state and federal officeholders have no interest in limiting themselves. Governor Josh Shapiro — who has spent decades holding office while running for the next job — would be hardest hit. But the change would accomplish many laudable goals. 

It would level the playing field with city politicians, yes, but it would more importantly keep officeholders focused on the job they currently hold, without constantly having one foot out the door. It would also necessarily lead to politicians leaving public employment, at least for brief periods, and having to support themselves like the rest of us for a while. Getting back in touch with the people you wish to represent is a good thing, and resign-to-run would help make it happen.

We aren’t holding our breath. We know how rare it is for members of any establishment to limit their own power in any way. But it would be nice for one member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to introduce a bill for this good-government, commonsense reform and let the people see where their representatives stand.