The Inquirer yesterday endorsed Republican Al Schmidt for City Controller. The crux of the editorial's argument is that the city needs someone outside the entrenched Democratic party to serve as a fiscal watchdog. To have a Democratic ward leader monitoring a largely Democratic City Hall, it says, basically amounts to the fox guarding the hen house:
"A ward leader who employs patronage hacks and is beholden to the dominant political machine isn't the best fiscal watchdog to mind City Hall."
Meanwhile, our friends/co-workers/mentors on the Daily News editorial board endorsed incumbent Democrat Alan Butkovitz this morning. The logic of the board's argument is twofold:
1) Butkovitz and Schmidt disagree about the central function of the Controller's office. Schmidt believes that the Controller should perform fiscal audits of every city department, as the city charter requires. Butkovitz says he can't afford those audits, and that, anyway, they're not that helpful: He instead prefers more in-depth, targeted "performance audits" of specific agencies. The board did some reporting and found that Schmidt's preferred audits would not have caught the employees recently charged with stealing funds from various city agencies. Butkovitz, the board concludes, is correct in this central dispute.
2) The controller's job is not just to do fiscal monitoring, but to make recommendations that get implemented. And the board worries that any recommendations made by Schmidt would be "dismissed as partisan potshots." Butkovitz, it says, is "not afraid to be unpopular" and so will prove more effective.
The only observation I'd like to add to all this is that, if Alan Butkovitz is re-elected, it seems to me that he should either a) make a LOT of noise about getting more funding for the fiscal audits he's supposed to do, or b) advocate for the charter to be changed -- it's ridiculous to have a charter provision that just isn't followed.
Tell us which argument makes sense to you in the comments below.
Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.
There's no way both papers would have endorsed a Republican. I knew the union-owned paper would have to hedge it somehow with their party. It's the Democrat-Media Complex. Not that it matters - the Philly robo-voters will just vote for who their union goons and reverends tell them to vote for. It beats thinking.— fafafooey- I love people who see conspiracies around every corner. Guess what? The carpenters union (who partially own PNI) don't influence editorial content in any way. Also, check their PAC statement. The carpenters probably give more money to Republicans than any other union.— benwaxman
Comment removed.
MONEY AND JUSTICE DON'T MIX
WILL THE NEW COUNCIL GIVE YOU A SAY?
Tips? Comments? Questions?
Contact:
Doron Taussig:
215-854-5307
doron.taussig@gmail.com
@dorontaussig
Holly Otterbein:
215-854-5809
hm.otterbein@gmail.com
@hollyotterbein
Juliana Reyes:
215-854-5855
juliana.f.reyes@gmail.com
@juliana_f_reyes
 | Follow on Twitter |
- Philly Clout
- Metropolis
- Attytood
- Heard in the Hall
- Commonwealth Confidential
- Philebrity
- Phawker
- Young Philly Politics
- OurPhiladelphia
- Capitol Ideas
- Grassroots PA
- PA Policy Blog
- Media Mobilizing Project
- The Notebook
- Dave Davies Off Mic
- Committee of Seventy
- The Independent
- Naked City
- Plan Philly
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
