Inquirer Editorial: Defend City Charter

There have been many occasions when Philadelphia voters had good reason to amend the City Charter, the document that provides the framework for municipal government. With yes votes on ballot questions in recent years, citizens set up a strong ethics board, streamlined parks and recreation management, and mandated more transparency in budgeting.

But at other times, it has been vital that voters resist city leaders' tendency to gum up the charter with provisions that are wrongheaded or better enacted by ordinance. Think of it as defending the charter.

On Tuesday, voters once again are called on to stand up for the charter by voting NO on all three questions authorized by City Council.

The hot-button amendment of the bunch would scrap the charter's sensible resign-to-run rule. City pols eager to test the waters without risking their jobs are eager for the change. But satisfying such ambition is no reason to tinker with the charter. Not only does the rule force local officials to focus on the jobs they were elected to, but it also assures that attempts at higher office come with a proof of commitment: resignation from a paying city post. As for claims that the change would make mayoral contests more competitive, they ignore even the recent history of the heated, five-way primary race that ushered Mayor Nutter into office.

Of the other ballot questions, one - a bid to force city subcontractors to pay higher wages - has been all but superseded by a recent mayoral order directing much the same thing. The third would allow Council to veto certain legal-aid contracts, a move driven by members' understandable concern about a Nutter proposal to privatize work now given to court-appointed lawyers. But there are other ways to protect indigent legal rights, and Council oversight doesn't need to be etched in the charter.

On the theory that it's possible to add by subtracting, voting NO on all three amendments will protect the charter as an effective blueprint for City Hall.