Gov. Wolf's "prelude to an olive branch"

TODAY'S TOPIC is opportunity.

As in opportunity in Harrisburg following developments this week that ended two fights - for now - between Gov. Wolf and the Republicans running the Legislature.

Wolf reinstated longtime GOP Senate aide Erik Arneson as head of the Office of Open Records, even though Wolf's appealing a court ruling that he was wrong to fire Arneson.

And Wolf's pick for State Police commissioner, Marcus Brown, is no longer Wolf's pick even though Brown remains acting commissioner until Wolf picks somebody else.

In both cases the Democratic governor essentially is saying, "OK, I get it, every squabble affects every other squabble, I need to pick my fights and focus on the big picture."

It's a smart move.

It might not lead to lasting peace but it could be, as one leading business lobbyist put it, "a prelude to an olive branch."

And it comes at a good time.

Wolf and lawmakers are at odds over complex issues involving pensions, school-funding, booze, fracking taxes and dealing with a deficit.

Steps toward conciliation can open doors, and that could lead to venting at least some of the toxicity long associated with much of what happens in Harrisburg.

Candidate Wolf promised a "fresh start" by a "different kind of leader" who would be a "different kind of governor."

So far, a lot of the push and pull over the single most important issue to Wolf and the Legislature - the annual budget due June 30 - seems all too familiar.

There's the usual posturing about "do-nothing" Republicans who love the status quo, and "tax and spend" Democrats who love throwing your money at problems that never ever get fixed.

This is seasoned with rancorous rhetoric that, while entertaining, suggests to citizens here we go again; they're all the same, all the time.

What if they weren't? What if Wolf did something completely different?

I mean more than his gift ban and transparency efforts, which are welcome changes. I mean a sea change in the political game.

What if the administration stopped trading blows with Republicans and simply reflected the civility that Wolf himself is known for?

Wolf spokesman Jeff Sheridan called Senate GOP President Joe Scarnati "delusional" for suggesting Wolf's union ties cloud his judgment in a battle involving western Pennsylvania health-care issues.

Sheridan said Senate GOP Leader Jake Corman is one reason people don't like Harrisburg, essentially labeling Corman a liar in a dispute over nominees for various boards and such.

Wolf chief of staff Katie McGinty slammed a GOP pension bill saying it provides lawmakers "lavish payouts," and that senators voting for it voted to "line their own retirement pocket."

The bill requires lawmakers to contribute more to maintain their benefits (which are "lavish" compared to the rest of us) until they're re-elected, at which point they join a 401(k) plan like other state employees - if the bill becomes law.

All these knocks were in response to questions. None is out of the ordinary or even necessarily wrong. But are they necessary?

Why not alter the ordinary? What if administration responses were limited to something like, "We look forward to working with the Legislature on behalf of all Pennsylvanians?"

Would that dull the edges? Reduce the noise to the sound of one hand clapping?

I suggest this knowing full well it's against the interest of my profession, which thrives on conflict, especially when it comes with quotable malice.

But if Wolf really wants to provide new, fresh, different leadership one way to start is to stop playing the same old game.

Who knows, such a change could be contagious.

Blog: ph.ly/BaerGrowls

Columns: ph.ly/JohnBaer