A few weeks ago, in the inaugural (and thus far only -- but not for long!) installment of our "Follow the (lack of) money" series, Anthony detailed the circumstances and potential ramifications of a reduction in funding for Philly's Housing Trust Fund.

To oversimplify the matter: Mayor Nutter came in to office and committed $15 million over five years to the fund, which leverages the money to bring in state and federal grants that finance affordable housing work (both rehab and new construction). When the city's finances went south, Nutter reduced that commitment, and then reduced it again. The projected five-year city commitment now stands at $6 million.

This reduction is exacerbated by the fact that the fund's other source of revenue, real estate transfer taxes, are also way down.

At the same time, the reduction is mitigated by the fact that affordable housing in Philadelphia (though not the trust fund) received a bump this year from stimulus money.

Part of the idea behind "Follow the (lack of) money" is to give you, dear reader, a sense of the cuts being made to the city budget, so you can assess the damage and the city's approach. Implicit in the Housing Trust Fund piece was the question, "Is this cut a reasonable thing for the city to do?"

This morning, we see that Councilman Darrell Clarke doesn't seem to think so. From the Inquirer:

Councilman Darrell L. Clarke proposed an increase in the percentage of recording fees that go to the city's Housing Trust Fund. The fund has sunk from $13.8 million in 2007 to $8.3 million. Funding of affordable housing has been an issue between Clarke and Mayor Nutter since Nutter became mayor in 2008.

This isn't the same thing as restoring Nutter's cut -- it's upping the fund's other source of revenue. But it is trying to make up for it.

If you have strong feelings about the Trust Fund cut Anthony detailed, this seems like a good opportunity to try to make your voice heard about it. Council's going to be considering a bill to re-commit city money for this purpose; contact your council person and let him or her know what you think. And by all means, tell us in comments, too.

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.

Yesterday, we reported that the GOP was slamming President Obama for mistakes on Recovery.gov, the website where the public can track $787 billion in stimulus funding. The site lists projects in non-existent congressional districts. Today, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a response from the Obama Administration.

According to Ed Pound, a spokesman for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the problem didn't originate with the federal government.

Pound said recipients of the money are to blame for the misreporting.

They are required to file detailed quarterly reports on money they receive, to a private government Web site called FederalReporting.gov. The reporting forms include nearly 100 blanks recipients must fill in, including the congressional district in which the money will be spent.

Those reports automatically transfer to the public Web site, Recovery.gov — unaltered or reviewed by anyone with the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, or anyone else in government, Pound said.

"Nobody is playing with this data. There is no manipulation. What you have is recipients filing information that is incorrect. You're dealing with human beings, and human beings make mistakes," Pound said.

What do think? Do you buy this explanation or is there more to the story? Let us know in the comments section!

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.

Thanks to the indictment of state Rep. John Perzel (R-Pa.), we’ve been hearing a lot lately about shady government use of computer systems.

Well, today Bob Warner writes about a longstanding effort by the city’s Board of Ethics to use computing technology to give voters more information.

The board settled a battle between Municipal Court Judge Thomas N. Nocella and contractor Ernesto DeNofa over their failure in 2007 to submit computerized reports of campaign contributions and expenditures.

DeNofa and Nocella both worked for the Appreciation Fund, a political action committee started by the late Councilwoman Carol Ann Campbell. The PAC ignored warnings from the board about producing computerized campaign records and then balked at paying the fines it was assessed.

The PAC allegedly went to great lengths to avoid paying the fines, which totaled $39,000, draining its bank account after it lost a decision in Common Pleas Court about paying the fines.

But the Ethics Board persevered, arguing that DeNofa and Nocella should pay the fines out of their own pockets. Each has agreed to pay $8,220 to settle the dispute. A lawyer for the two has admitted this will help strengthen existing campaign finance laws.

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.

At least one elected official thinks this week's charges against State Rep. John Perzel should lead to sweeping reforms. Gov. Ed Rendell announced yesterday that he will spend the remainder of his time in office pursuing major changes in Harrisburg.

Rendell, who will be out of the office at the end of 2010, said the culture of corruption has hurt his policy agenda and must change.

"We've done great things legislatively [but] get virtually no credit for it because we have a process that's broken," Rendell told reporters at a press conference. "Special interests still dominate the scene here in Harrisburg."

The governor made three specific proposals: campaign finance reform, merit selection for judges, and changing the redistricting process. Below are the details, as described by the Associated Press.

Rendell renewed his pitch for imposing the first-ever limits on state campaign contributions, ending the election of appellate judges, and giving citizens control over the redrawing of legislative districts every 10 years.
....
Rendell's campaign-finance plan would limit contributions to candidates for statewide office by individuals or political committees to $5,000 and set limits on total contributions during any two-year election cycle. Current law prevents corporations from giving to campaigns but imposes no monetary limits.

Rendell is a lame-duck at this point, so passage of these reforms will be difficult. Here is the real question: Will the public show enough outrage to force the legislature to act? What do you think?

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.

Why is the Pennsylvania Republican Party criticizing the Obama adminstration for $12 million in recovery funds that came to this state?

The stimulus projects being tracked on the federal government's recovery.gov include a total of $12 million for the 00th, 96th, 21st and 65th congressional district.

The problem? These don't exist in Pennsylvania.

“While many Pennsylvania are still waiting for something positive to come of the stimulus, I guess those living in the 00th congressional district can be proud [of] President Obama, Senator Specter, and Democratic congressional members for 'creating' so many jobs,” said GOP chairman Rob Cleason. “Obama needs to let Pennsylvanias know if and how stimulus money was spent in congressional districts that don't exist.”

The problem is not confined to Pennsylvania. Numerous mistakes in the stimulus progress reports submitted to Congress last month generated similar charges in other parts of the country. For example, Rep. Rob Bishop (R - Utah) mocked the Obama Administration in the the Salt Lake City Tribune for listing $1.1 million in a non-existent congressional district.

“This is great news,” said Bishop. “Who needs to count Mormon missionaries in the Census when according to the Executive Branch, Utah already has a 4th seat in Congress!”

The criticism has not be limited to Republicans. Rep. David Obey (D – Wisconsin), the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, issued a rare statement rebuking the Obama Administration for the errors.

“The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes," said Obey in a statement released yesterday. “Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We’ve got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen."

Obama Administration officials have promised to go through the reports and correct the mistakes.

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.

A significant dynamic of the SEPTA strike that didn't get resolved in contract negotiations was the union's accusation that SEPTA had mismanaged its pension fund. Rather than just making the size of pension contributions a contract issue, the TWU complained about the health of its pension. But the strike ended without SEPTA agreeing to the forensic audit the union had at one point demanded.

It looks like the TWU hasn't forgotten the matter, however. The Philadelphia Weekly reports today that the TWU is considering suing SEPTA:

Local 234, which ended a six-day strike on November 8, has retained the law firm of Kaufman, Coren & Ress, P.C. The issue at hand: Workers want to know what firm the money is being invested with, what the rate of return is and what fees investors are being paid.

“We believe that SEPTA is not properly managing our pension,” Local 234 President Willie Brown says. “Even before the recession it wasn’t funded at proper levels. We want to ensure for future retirees.”

The Weekly says the union's board will meet tomorrow to decide whether to pursue legal action.

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.

It's not every day that Philadelphia taxpayers can wake up and see that a local government program is continuing to gain buzz as a potential model for a national crisis, but here's the city's foreclosure prevention program featured positively in the New York Times.

This is on the heels of plenty of other local and national coverage of the program, and the designers need to be congratulated again for their innovative approach. It should be noted, though, that passages like this are cause for caution:

Some suggest the city’s program is plagued by the same basic defect as the Obama rescue plan: Nearly all the loans that have been modified have been altered on a trial basis, requiring homeowners to reapply for an extension of the terms after only a few months — a process that appears rife with obstacles, according to participants.

The program has boasted before about saving over 1,000 families from foreclosure, and we guess what the Times is saying here is: yes, maybe. The bottom line is that Philly's approach to this issue is more humane than most, and promising. But the jury's still out.

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.

In the comments of the Fire Department page on City Howl, "Smokey" points out something we missed:

"How Ironic that the picture you have representing the Fire Dept. is of Engine Co. 14. Engine Co. 14, formerly of Foulkrod & Darrah Sts., was closed in the beginning of 2009, along with 4 other Engine Companies and 2 Ladder Companies."

The picture, which you see at left, has since been taken off Howl's front page, though there is certainly a sad irony to the fact that we chose it to represent the Fire Department initially.

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.

Back in 2000, State Rep. John Perzel experienced something rare for an incumbent politician: he almost lost. A report from the Institute for Money in State Politics underlines just how rare this was. According to their survey of local elections between 2002 and 2004, between 75 percent and 78 percent of incumbents in state legislatures were re-elected nationwide. In Pennsylvania, those numbers were between 89.2 percent and 94.1 percent.

The close call in 2000 allegedly inspired Perzel to use taxpayer money to build a massive database of Pennsylvania voters, for use in elections. Apparently the idea of losing his seat was unimaginable to the State Rep. -- and when one considers the built-in advantages incumbents here have, one can begin to see why.

Below are some of the ways that incumbents enjoy an upper hand over challengers.

Constituent services. The job of an elected official puts him or her in a position to help people. People contact their legislators to navigate state agencies, lobby on particular issues, or apply for government assistance. When a public official does the job well, it naturally builds a constituency. Most challengers, by contrast, have to build one from scratch.

Fundraising. Sitting lawmakers also tend to raise more money than challengers. Partly this is because legislators -- particularly powerful ones, like John Perzel -- can influence the outcome of legislation. Many of the bills before the General Assembly are of interest to major industries. Companies seeking favorable treatment shower incumbents with campaign contributions. In Perzel's case, he out-raised his opponents in 2008 by more than $2 million.

Media coverage. Incumbents also have an easier time attracting media attention, especially in neighborhood publications. Sitting lawmakers often have staff who focus partially or fully on getting media attention for their work. Challengers are forced to constantly struggle for media attention, and their efforts are often viewed as self-motivated and political.

We noted last week that one of the primary similarities between the initial Bonusgate scandal, involving Democrats, and the Perzel indictment is the desire to hold on to power, and the alleged willingness to break the law to do it. Regardless of party, there's a culture of incumbency in Harrisburg. Some people seem to think a job with the state legislature is a lifetime appointment.

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.