Why don't we elect ward leaders ourselves, instead of letting committee people pick them?

When the US Senate was forced to switch to direct elections, Senators stopped representing States themselves, and started representing the people within the state. In other words, prior to the direct election of Senators, it was hard vote for a policy that pulled power from the States- because those State Legislators who you were taking power from would kick you out. Once direct elections started, the concerns of Senators became much less about what a State Rep. wanted, and much more about what his constituency thought.

A lot of civil rights bills, for example, which took power from the States, likely would not have happened unless we started electing Senators ourselves.

It seems to me that directly electing them would make them much more visible to those they serve.

And, I think, an important discussion. BTW, do you have a link to the article with the "best answers" from the previous post?

As much attention as I pay to politics, I have barely any idea of what the hell Ward leaders are supposed to do, but the whole system seems pretty shady to me, if this description from a city paper article on the most powerful person in the city that you've never heard of (i.e. Ward Leader & unelected City Councilwoman Carol Campbell) is in anyway correct I'd like to see the entire system reformed:

It's easy to see why Campbell would want to stay on as ward leader. The job has been profitable.

Technically, ward leaders are unpaid. But come election time, judicial candidates queue up to hand them money. Philadelphia elects its judges; this is an asinine system, since the candidates are virtually unknown, and moreover, aren't supposed to have campaign platforms. In such a situation, party support is a huge boon, and the Democrats have learned to take full advantage of this: The party charges a large sum (now $35,000) for its endorsement, and ward leaders charge hopefuls additional thousands. Ostensibly, the money is for get-out-the-vote work, but it's hard to keep track of.

So, in other words, people pay to become judges.

One of the people they pay the most is Carol Campbell. In 1994, Campbell was elected the chair of the United African-American Ward Leaders, which meant she could offer access to more wards than just her own. She became a go-to person for candidates, and they would hand her large checks for her support. But there were flaws in her approach.

First, in 1997, Campbell feuded with state Sen. Vince Fumo when he claimed he had paid her $18,000 to back two candidates whom she abandoned. Campbell denied the charge, and, in a quote that one pol calls "basic Campbell," suggested that the money Fumo was upset about was insignificant.

"Let me tell you something," she told the Daily News. "That little $18,000 wouldn't keep me in pantyhose, so don't go there. I didn't get a nickel of that money."

Then, in 2001, the state's attorney general investigated judicial elections, and charged Campbell (and several others) with illegal collection and spending of campaign money, and failure to file campaign expense reports. He described the problem thusly: "Money just disappeared."

Arguing that she was too ill to travel to Harrisburg for pretrial processing, Campbell was processed in Bob Brady's ward office, with Sylvester Johnson — then the Deputy Police Commissioner and, a few months later, the Commissioner — personally presiding. She was ultimately found guilty of failing to file the reports, fined $1,250 and sentenced to a year of probation.

Despite the considerate treatment from the law, Campbell knew she had to change her ways. What she did next was truly innovative. Instead of accepting checks in her capacity as ward leader, Campbell set up "consulting" firms that charged candidates for the same services — this time, outside the jurisdiction of campaign finance laws. As the Inquirer has reported, Campbell-led firms, including The Visionary Group and Genesis IV, took in $216,000 from candidates in the May 2003 primaries. In May 2005, they made another $200,000.

One judicial candidate who has given money to Campbell is Sharon Losier, who went into the election process with little knowledge of how the system worked. She says she enlisted the help of a consultant nicknamed "Ducky" who told her where to spend her money. The money she paid Campbell bought her several meetings with the ward leader, during which Campbell advised Losier and several other candidates about what churches to visit, etc. It was "understood that she [had] a dual role as ward leader."

I'll throw one idea out there: I'd like to see a complete separation between the election of judges and the ward leaders. I don't want judges that can afford to pay people in smoke filled rooms, I want the best, most capable, judges to preside over our city. The current system seems setup to ensure that we get mediocre judges, and I can't believe that there isn't some connection between this twisted method of buying a judges seat and our seemingly broken judicial system.

Either way this all has the appearance of people paying for their positions, and that disgusts me deeply. I'd like some light shined on the entire funding process as it relates to Ward leaders. I'd also much rather have the city pay Ward leaders than allow them to take either explicit or backroom bribes from people who are supposed to judge the law.

TERM LIMITS.

If we are serious about increasing civic participation and the development of new leaders, we must enact term limits for everyone - not just the Mayor.

______________________________
Phillyville

On paper, the ward structure seems like a good idea. It inherently allows people to move up the political ranks to a level they are comfortable with. The problem it, it seems to have turned more into a bully system where strong armed Ward leaders tell committee people what to do by slipping them some cash. Also, with the decreasing amounts of committeepeople, it doesn't seem to be sustainable. It isn't the days of huge political rallies and election parties and cheering for your candidate like a football team.

My "extreme" recommendation is to keep the ward boundary structure, but eliminate Council person elections (including at-Large). The new City Council would be populated by a single elected Ward leader; each ward would no longer have a leader representing each party.

This would increase the size of Council, but also remove a layer of abstraction between it and the citizenry. It would also narrow the scope of what the council/ward leader would have to serve. Also, you can keep committee people, but they don't elect the ward/council member. General elections do. Committee people would have the duty of getting people out to vote and relaying issues in their divisions and neighborhood.

Of course, they would also stagger the elections. 25% every year or 50% every two years. It wouldn't be any significant drain on elections because they would only need to campaign in a 10-15 block radius.

Finally, it would most likely help balance out some of the political one-sidedness (even though I know a lot of people are very happy with the Democratic lock down of the City).

People would get better representation. in the City.

A fully-implemented 311 system would take a lot of power away from ward leaders as being the sole fix-its in the system.

I want to expand on a point made in Dan's original post. For all of the flaws in the ward system, it is an effective get out the vote operation for statewide candidates. Since Democrats can't win statewide without Philadelphia, the ward system is critical to the future of progressive politics in our state.

In fact, I think the ward system is somewhat of a model for the rest of the United States. We need a permanent system to mobilize Democratic party activists in every part of the country. Right now, the Democratic Party has almost no local roots in Republican-held areas. This is a very bad thing and the ward system offers an organizing model based on local outreach.

---
http://benwaxman.com

Hmmm. Given that taskmaster Dan is demanding answers rather than just carping about what's wrong (my preferred activity), at first I felt I couldn't add much to the discussion. How DO we make a better system? An overwhelming concept, really.

Certainly, holding those who have been a part of the current system accountable for the ways it has let us down, and replacing them accordingly, is one obvious answer - but that doesn't really address the larger questions: How are the problems of the Philly Dem machine really a by-product of the system's design? In what ways is there an inevitability to the machine process -- as in power necessarily corrupts -- and those who would be the "replacers" will just replicate the inefficiencies and self-serving, power-maintaining practices of the "replacees?"

But thankfully, the posts above have some great ideas to ruminate on. As Stan suggests, I think one key is to look at ward leaders as conveyers of information. I think the ward system is a perfectly fine system, if ward leaders' roles are defined differently than they seem to be defined by current practice.

It seems to me that a ward leader's job should only partially be about helping folks that live in their wards to problem-solve about issues they're confronting. Such a function for ward leaders works at one level, but doesn't add any value to the machine-system as a whole.

How do ward leaders function to help us evaluate performance of folks higher up in the system? How do they help provide benchmarks to evaluate our government and its policies? Although I'm certainly no capitalist, there is some merit in using well-defined and recognized business-type performance evaluation systems in our City government. There are such initiatives taking place in many levels of government in many places. How much is it happening in our City government.

Another key might be to have ward leaders function better with the issue Alex raises above -- to have ward leaders help build transparency into our government. Why aren't they telling us what decisions are being made where and by whom with respect to how our money is being spent? And why aren't they giving us the information to help us evaluate those processes? The potential of the Internet to play a role in such a process is huge. Not that the problem of a lack of transparency can all be placed at the feet of ward leaders: one time heard Rosita Youngblood railing about the lack of existing transparency in how our money is being spent as things currently stand -- even for her - and I shared her outrage. But how do we really expect our communities to get better if we don't really have much information about how public funds are being spent? And how can ward leaders function with some autonomy with respect to helping us evaluate government spending processes when their very existence is so dependant on the movement of power as wielded by mother members within the machine?

As Ruby says above, maybe term limits would help build transparency and accountability. As Radaradam suggest, eliminating redundancies or unneeded levels of hierarchy should be evaluated. Defnining jobs and responsibilities and how they funcion as a system are key (As Alex suggests, how well do our ward leaders help us to evaluate judges as opposed to helping particular judges get elected?). Certainly, having ward leaders elected would increase their accountability.

I think that what links these ideas is the meat here. How do we re-envision the ward system? How can ward leaders help buld civic society, given that their very conceptualization is based on mobilizing civic society? As it currently stands, it seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw in how the role of ward is generally practiced, i.e., for ward leaders to be the functionaries in the system that help the government direct its energies to individuals or particular groups on an individuated basis. And I think that it is no coincidence that such a model is a self-perpetuating one, where it serves to help those in power keep that power rather than to help the system build synergies and efficiencies and criteria that might be used to create change. In the end, as it stands, the ward leaders have no interest or intrinsic role in refining or improving the system as a whole - but only to find ways to help individuals or specific groups.

Rather, I think that ward leaders need to function to channel information out into our communities, and to be a vehicle through which, as a result of having been provided that information, the citizenry can reform the governmental processes.

I know that's all very general, kind of repetitive, and is pretty unsatisfactory, but I'm just trying to clarify my thoughts in my own mind through writing and trying to put others' ideas together, and I'm worried I'll get kicked off the site if I don't respond with something.

This is an important discussion.

I became a committeeperson in 1976 in Southwest Germantown--13th Ward, First Division, where State Representative Rosita Youngblood (ward leader of the 13th Ward) lives now. I had been active in rebuilding a group called the Southwest Germantown Association (SGA)---which was taking on fights against redlining and unfair property tax assessments while building a summer jobs program for kids. A few people active in SGA came to me and asked if I would become a committeeperson. I didn't know what that was (I didn't grow up here), but once I learned, it made sense. Since there was no one else running in the 13th ward, 1st division, it was easy to win (always easy when you don't have an opponent).

But I took on an added challenge. I was in the midst of getting my Ph.D. in political science and immersed in the debate over why political participation in America was declining. One school said that people were just increasingly alienated from the political process. Another argued that the decline reflected the decomposition of local party organizations which historically had provided a link between the personal and the political, especially in cities.

So I decided as an experiment to do everything I could in that division to build support. I organized block cleanups. I went door to door with voter registration cards. I fought for capital improvements in a nearby park. The result was dramatic. In the spring when I was elected, there were 289 registered Democrats. By the fall, there were 433 registered Democrats. And we had a 90% turnout rate in November--unprecedented. Clearly, by connecting local concerns to our broader political agenda we were able to mobilize people who otherwise wouldn't vote.

Two years later, I became ward leader and advanced the same point of view in that position. When I moved to another Germantown location, I had to give up my ward leader position but became a committeperson in the 12th ward--and later in the Mt Airy section of the 9th ward. I had to give all of it up when I became Community Development Director in 1987 and I haven't run for committeeperson since then--mostly because the 9th ward, 1st division is well served.

So to me, a ward system can be an incredible force for encouraging grassroots political participation, for linking local issues to national politics, and for outright political education. That's what a number of us did in the 1970's and 80's as part of our own reform movement in Northwest Philadelphia--Joe Coleman, Bob O'Donnell, Dwight Evans, John White, Jr., Marian Tasco, and the people working with State Representative Dave Richardson. We used the ward system as instruments of grassroots political empowerment and reform. In the process, we brought thousands of people into the political process.

Let me add that a system built around *people* mobilizing voters is a hellofalot cheaper than a system built around the media mobilizing voters. I spent just $45,000 to win as a Councilman-at-Large in 1983--thanks to the Citywide network of committeepeople I had built. That was unheard of, even then. But it showed what we could do with the ward system if we were committed to doing it.

That kind of energy just hasn't been applied to the ward system over the past decade. Without a serious battle against a Frank Rizzo--which is also what motivated us--there hasn't been the cause to bring together. Moreover, when the parties decided to give committeepeople four year terms--not two year terms--that took a lot of energy out of the process. There's a reason that the anti-federalists demanded two year terms for members of Congress. They understood that frequent elections are in the peoples' interests. Moving to four year terms was designed specifically to make it harder for people to challenge the people in power.

But Neighborhood Networks and various independent caucuses within wards are recapturing some of this energy. This is something we all need to build on.

Here are a few of the principles that guided us back then..and are viable now:

1. The function of a strong ward is to help exert power on behalf of its surrounding neighborhood in dealing with the city--not just in landing patronage jobs and street money and fixing tickets. Strong wards organize blocks, support capital improvements in area recreation centers, and take leadership in fights for housing and community development. That's what makes them strong.

2. Strong wards are always working to expand registration and voter participation. We're better than we were, but there are still thousands of people in Philadelphia who don't vote--even for President. That ought to be an ongoing challenge for the ward leaders in both parties.

3. Strong wards should be inviting elected officials to *open* meetings with the candidates they're supporting--meetings that everyone can attend.

4. In this age of the internet, strong wards should be building email networks and blogs for their committeepeople and for the active citizens in their districts. I don't think any ward is doing this now. They should.

These are just a few priorities. I'm sure people here could expand upon them.

The important point is that as we look to making government in Philadelphia accessible, accountable, and effective, building a strong ward system in this city should be a priority.

That so many people on Young Philly Politics are unclear as to how the ward system works and how it *could* work itself attests to the problem.

If political activists don't know how the ward system works, that's not their fault, it's the fault of the ward system as it has evolved over the past several.

Add this to the list of things that need to be changed.

The ward/committee structure is a very basic mobilizing model for getting out the vote. That is its primary purpose in today's political world. While it still to some degree doles out patronage and facilitates constituent service, that's no longer its primary function. As Ben Waxman notes above, Philadelphia's Democratic machine is instrumental in making sure Pennsylvania remains a "blue" state. If that's our sole or primary objective, then there's no need for structural reform. The machine works. Could use a little new blood from time to time -- I don't think that party leaders should be afraid of some healthy competition -- but it ain't broke. At some level, we should thank the machine for getting rid of Rick Santorum and allowing us to hold our heads up and say PA didn't go for Shrub.

But if we're talking about building a progressive political *organizing* machine (as opposed to simply a mobilizing, getting-out-the-party-vote machine) we need to think differently. We need an organizing committee to identify issues to organize around and to recruit activists. We need to build geographically-specific committees of activists and train them to organize others. We need to raise some money to help with research and infrastructure development. And we need to be a constant presence in City Hall and in the neighborhoods, agitating on our core issues at election time and beyond. Especially beyond. We need to hold elected officials accountable. We need to make sure information gets passed up and down the chain. We need both "inside" and "outside" strategies. We need to include already existing progressive organizations. And nurture new ones.

We don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel -- Neighborhood Networks might be a good framework to start with. As would the group that's come together around Inclusionary Housing, the Philadelphia Campaign for Housing Justice.

Again, these thoughts are my own and not those of my organization.

Let me start with the assumption here that we're not getting rid of the two party system in the city. When everyone started complaining about the party's selection of ward leaders for City Council positions I was rather confused. What better way would either party know about good candidates than those who choose to get involved in politics by engaging their electorate, getting elected as committeman and then making the jump to ward leader. These people obviously understand some level of politics, have a decent knowledge of their neighborhoods and generally engage with their constituents to get them to the polls every election and know what drives them.

In the case of this past special election, I think the only person who botched it was Anna Verna by not calling an election sooner. Having any seat vacant with no intention of filling it is simply ludicrous and should have been illegal. There was plenty of time to hold a good primary and election. Instead the city asked each party to do the primary part on its own. Still it makes sense again that they pick ward leaders in special elections as they are quickly tapable and known to the council seat's district members.

As someone who has been to ward meetings and seen things from the inside, where I think the system fails is in two places. One is definitely that the ward leaders, like an electoral college member, is elected to represent the ward and is not obligated to vote exactly as the committeemen say. The ward leader's are the ones who get together and decide in a given state rep or state senate race who to endorse. They don't poll their committeemen. Second, the committemen are only elected once every four years. Being the ones who elect the ward leaders, I think this should be every 2 years just like a congressmen. It's too easy for someone to walk away or lose interest after 4 years at the grassroots level and not have someone around to replace them. Even worse, it's too easy to have someone who has become corrupt or incompetent and not have 4 years to challenge them.

So in my mind the system could work if it was a little more accessible and open.

I would be really interested to hear the perspective of some ward leaders on this topic. Maybe the response will be "its working fine," but, it would be interesting to hear from some ward leaders and some more committee people, as well.

As a republican, one of the problems with the Ward system is “each City Committee usually selects ("endorses") candidates for organizational support among those competing for its party nomination in the primary”.
http://www.seventy.org/transparency/electedofficials/jobdescriptions/par...
How can the ordinary citizen hope to make a difference, when the selection of candidates to elected positions are in the hands of those whose best interest is not to endorse specific competing candidates? As an example: The following State Reps. are Ward Leaders, John Taylor (25th), Dennis O’Brien (57th) , George Kenney (58th), John Perzel (64th), while Mike Meehan (65th) is the Legal Council for the Republican Committee and Joe Duda (66th) is City Commissioner and Executive Director for the Republican City Committee.
http://www.phillygop.com/
There are more than enough talented people (D and R) who want the opportunity to become involved beginning as a Committeeperson (mentorship) and working up the ladder, possibly into an elected position but why should someone become involved when there is such a stonewall in the surrounding conflict of interest unless you want to become indoctrinated into the “machine”.
Individuals with professional backgrounds who step forward to compete/challenge entrenched politicians are seemingly at the disadvantage not because of talent but because of upsetting the status quo.

Some of you may know that Bab Brady got his start when a local Committee Person wouldn't repair a broken street light in front of his mother's house. The now Congressman ran for the Committeeman's position and beat the guy who failed to deliver. Bob Brady never forgot that service is the keystone of the ward system.
You don't hang around long if you don't take care of your constituants.

Does that service to the local community give the committee person some extra access? Probably. Does the success of the Ward structure make it hard for someone who hasn't taken care of the folks in the ward to enter the system? Probably. Is it frustrating to people who would like to deliver constituant services? Probably. I would prefer it if ward politis could be more inclusive. Where people want to help Philadelphia grow, I hope that some way could be found to take advantage of that energy.

Carol Campbell has delivered to the local constituants. She has helped other politicians get elected which is why, in return, they support her. Where ward politics don't serve the people, those leaders should be replaced in favor of politicans who will.

Ben Waxman was dead on in his post about what's right with ward politics:

I want to expand on a point made in Dan's original post. For all of the flaws in the ward system, it is an effective get out the vote operation for statewide candidates. Since Democrats can't win statewide without Philadelphia, the ward system is critical to the future of progressive politics in our state.

In terms of structural changes, here are some suggestions so far

1)Greater Transparency in money spent, and in how the wards function
2)311 and civil service to lessen the patronage aspect
3)Direct Election of ward leaders, and return committeepeople to being elected every two years.
4)Pay committee people a small salary if they show up, to basically make them quasi professionals
5)Term limits
6)Removing judges from being at the whim of ward leaders

Let's keep these going.

And, also, the more fundamental question: What is the end goal here? I am of the opinion that if you had this type of system, where it was easy for activists to get involved and run for committe seats, where ward leaders were directly elected, we might not need NN. OK, not true- we can always use a well organized group of progressives- but, if the system were better they could more easily operate sort of outside the system, but also inside of it, as a sort of Citywide progressive caucus.

Though this may sound crazy, it's not all that hard to get elected committeeperson. Most on the site know it takes ten signatures to get on the ballot in your division. While each ward has some harder-working committeepeople a lot of wards don't. Now, the elections are every four years, which doesn't mean a high turnover, but it doesn't take a lot to get on the ballot. If you get on the ballot, it's a matter of working your division to win. In the typical primary, you'll have about 25-40%max turnout.

I saw NN get some people elected last time around, but it seemed focussed on certain areas of the city. Perhaps it was a dry run. Unfortunately, another go-round will have to wait until 2010. In the meantime, those seeking to get involved in the process should stay active in their communities. Nothing is stopping anyone from hanging out at the polls each election.

I agree that the committeeperson elections should be every two years, not unlike most non-profit board terms or other neighborhood association terms.

The fundamental question is: What comes with the job?
I believe that today's Philadelphia, at least in terms of constituent services is less dependent on this system, though it still exists. Remember though that this position also comes with headaches, sometimes, as some often come with problems that may be out of the reach of a mild-mannered committeperson.

I like a good chicken and egg argument, and often wonder whether or not this job evolved into its present state as a part of the system or the system installed it as part of itself. Likewise, can a political system exist without at least a small measure of it.

Feel free to hack this point to pieces, but the current system does present somewhat of a check on a candidate with a whole lot of money buying an election through television campaigning.
Essentially, Fattah, Evans, Brady and Nutter all have a base of people, cultivated through the current system. Much of this strength lies in the ward structure.

While Term Limits are laudable, be aware they provide an unfair advantage to the best organization. Term Limits have the effect of throwing out good folks and allowing unelected officials to control the process.

Be careful what you wish for.

FWIW!

The ward system needs a influx of new blood now and continually in the future. It ain't happening as things are set up.

I was elected last May as a Democratic committeeman in the 24th ward. I ran cause both seats were open and figured I could do a better job than no one. If the seats were filled, there's no way I would've run. But that's the kicker. Many ward leaders (especially Democratic ones) actively discourage competition for the committeeperson seats. Ward leaders know who got them elected, so why change things and rock the boat? End result: old blood.

Committeemen seats basically change hands when someone dies, beats the incumbent in an election, or the incumbent stands down in favor of their handpicked successor.

Instead of the adversarial option to beating an incumbent committeemen, we need a position of Associate Committeeman. If Joe Budding Committeeman knows that it's acceptable and commonplace to work alongside a veteran committeeman who'll show him the ropes, that's how he gets pulled into local politics. John Current Committeeman would much rather hand over the division in a few years (and not when he's 75) to someone who he's mentored, knocked doors with and trusts than a nobody who's "out to overthrow the machine".

The Associate Committeeman would attend all the ward meetings, help the current committeeman, get out the vote and be a genuine help to the ward. At the same time, AC shows CC that progressives ain't so bad after all and that we want to help the city and neighborhood as much as they do. The ACs would have all the responsibilities of committeeman, just not be able to vote in ward elections. Some ward leaders do invite interested future committeemen to join in ward functions as non-voting members. Most do not. They tell you to beat the incumbent head to head, then they'll talk to you. That's going to turn off most challengers.

I hate to get all psychological, but there's a genuine fear and hatred on both sides of the machine. It's insane and counterproductive.

Look, the ward system has beaten Rick Santorum and George Bush twice. It's a good thing. And it should be a tool for getting people involved in politics. In my case, I became a committeeman before I got really interested in local politics. If those seats weren't open last May, there's no way I'd be reading YPP.

To reiterate and respond to things that have been said:
-ward transparency is vital.
-committeeman terms should go back to 2 years.
-judges should not be elected.
-committeemen do get paid to show up. We get street money, food on election days, food at ward meetings, it's not so bad.
-I'm skeptical of direct election of ward leaders. It could become like judge elections and be a matter of money. The average Philadelphian knows their committeeman. They probably don't know their ward leader. Let the committeemen decide.
-lets change the machine from the bottom up

Councilman Kenney raises a good point. We progressives need to build ORGANIZATIONS that will endure, that will serve to define and relentlessly pursue an agenda. In Pittsburgh right now there's an interesting experiment happening in building a permanent progressive majority. It takes resources, as Ray Murphy points out. You need some staff, to ensure continuity. I do not believe that there is a lack of civic energy in this town. I've lived in many other places that compare rather poorly to Philadelphia in this regard.

So, as far as working with/in the system, I like AJ Thompson's suggestion: let's make committeepeople stand for election every two years. That might make the City's Democratic Committee a bit more vital. There are, as we found out in 2005, many unfilled seats and many seats filled by people who do very little.

However, I personally think our best place to focus our energies is building a new structure that doesn't necessarily focus on electoral politics. As my favorite feminist socialist, Emma Goldman, once put it, "If voting could really change anything it would be illegal." While I no longer take that sentiment as literally as I did when I was in my 20s, I do believe that a truly progressive politics must always, by definition, be an "outside game" to a large degree.

The progressive wing of the labor movement needs to come together with other groups to form something we might call the Philadelphia Campaign for Social Justice.