By Steve Strahs, Election Reform Network -

Last week’s Board of Commissioners meeting was the scene of some bizarre political twists and turns as the three commissioners continued their jockeying over what could be a new and improved ethics ordinance authored by Democrat Joe Hoeffel.  While the proposal itself is pretty straightforward, like just about everything in county politics, the story behind it and what it means is not.

During the Fumo trial, Republican Comr. Bruce Castor, former Montco District Attorney, noted during the course of his testimony that he had had some conversations and used email at the DA’s office related to his bid for state attorney general back in 2003.  This was the springboard for Hoeffel’s proposal; he asserted that Castor’s casual admissions reflected a focus on politics at the courthouse (including county government), or the potential for it, at the expense of the people’s business. Hence the need for ethics reform.

This is actually old political ground merely undergoing some new cultivation techniques.  A somewhat comparable ethics ordinance was passed back in 1998, during Hoeffel’s first tenure as part of the Montco governing majority (while also being the lone Democrat on the three-seat board).  The ordinance at that time banned all political activity – running for office, fundraising, speech making, serving on a political committee, etc., for about ten key department heads and top staffers, while Hoeffel’s version last week prohibited only running for office and fundraising, but for a much larger group of officals.  Not covered were existing political office holders, including the county commissioners and row office holders, and all staff of the row offices, including Assistant DAs.

But when the current chairman, James Matthews, took over in 2000, his Republican majority got the ordinance dropped, and there things stood.  Matthews considers the tight restrictions “draconian” and perhaps unconstitutional.  It is worth noting that during the 2007 county election campaign, strengthening the ethics law was a part of the Democratic platform, but if memory serves - and I could be wrong on this - it was not visible on the Republican agenda.  Where it gets interesting is that after the 2008 power-sharing arrangement was set between Matthews and Hoeffel, leaving the ex-D.A. on the sidelines, Castor began touting ethics reform as an example of what sets him apart from his two colleagues running the show.  Then came Hoeffel’s response to Castor’s testimony at the Fumo trial, which included calling for an investigation of the former DA, and all hell broke loose, which is pretty much a regular feature of Montco politics these days.

The latest twist is that despite the rhetorical grenades tossed by all three, the two Republicans actually agreed to vote to table the Hoeffel proposal in favor of a redraft for the April 2 meeting.  Note that this was just after Castor pivoted, going from calling the draft ordinance “a Hoeffel-Matthews corruption policy” at one moment to then publicly agreeing to support a tougher version that would rule out virtually all political participation and cover the DA’s office.  This meant that Castor did a pirouette and crossed the partisan divide to collaborate with his nemesis -  at least one of them - Democrat Hoeffel.

To penetrate the political smoke a bit, it seems safe to say that the fate of good government is not riding on passage of any of this.  For one thing, political or other significant extra-curricular activity on the county clock is already prohibited.  For another, potential hiring on the basis of political patronage and the granting of lucrative no-bid contracts in exchange for hefty campaign contributions remain safely intact.  Still, one important principle involved is underscored: that county employees should not be subject to intimidation or manipulation by their bosses into supporting political campaigns.

In addition, other provisions, such as citizens having access to the state financial disclosure forms required of officials through the county website is a genuine contribution to the ideal of open and transparent government.  The same goes for the requirement that all campaign finance filings for candidates for county office be posted on-line.  (Candidates for local government should also be included.)  At present, the only way to review county and local filings is to spend considerable time at the Board of Elections, which is not equipped to accommodate such research, or spend considerable money on inflated copying costs.

If the proposed reforms pass, the package is a definite plus.  Questions have yet to be resolved, such as which positions will be covered and possibly whether there are constitutional limits to a  total ban on political activity.  The biggest hurdle, though, seems to be whether the authority of county commissioners even extends to the row offices and whether Assistant DAs will be covered.

Partisan considerations are particularly sharp on this one, considering that the DA’s office has long been an effective political launching pad for Republicans, including Castor himself.  So the ex-DA’s stated willingness to vote for an ordinance which prohibits Assistant DAs from running for office is a surprise.  It seems that he’s willing to bank on that part of the law being overturned by the courts.  Other Republicans may not be so confident. There was a dust-up just this week on The Inquirer’s letters page between Hoeffel and Republican State Rep. Kate Harper.  (Read them here and here.)  Harper argued that it would discourage top-flight lawyers from running for judge, while Hoeffel countered that it would minimize potential conflicts of interest, including those between Assistant DAs seeking office and defense lawyers, and protect employees from political demands.

Considering the ways of the political world, it would be less than stunning for there to be pressure in county offices, including that of the District Attorney, to support political candidates of the dominant party.  Measures that minimize it and encourage professionalism make sense.  An Assistant DA who wants to run can resign, which is the way it works in other places, including Philadelphia.

Overall, a workable ethics ordinance would be a welcome step forward in Montgomery County. But to use a food metaphor, consider it an appetizer.  You want the main course?  Try tough limits on campaign contributions and limiting the connection between them and county contracts.  There’s plenty more to do in this area, especially at the state level.  How hungry are you for political change?

Steve Strahs
ELECTION REFORM NETWORK
www.electionreformnetwork.us