Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Strange Bedfellows
There is a movement afoot to reduce the size of Pittsburgh City Council from its current size of nine to five. With public outcry over Council’s spending habits, particularly those of Councilwoman Carlisle, some reform of Council or its operations is needed. But it is not the call for change that is interesting; rather it is who is pushing for the change—the City firefighters’ union and City Republicans. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Each has their own agenda for reducing the size of Council. The firefighters’ union is still upset that the Act 47 designation has reduced their collective bargaining power. They may be interested in loading council with members who would be more favorable to removing the designation, thus restoring power to the union—a power they enjoyed when conspiring with then Mayor Murphy to land a sweetheart contract in 2001.
City Republicans haven’t sniffed a meaningful elected office for decades and would love to win a seat on Council. But would a smaller Council increase their chances of gaining a seat? If Council districts are redrawn, it will more than likely be by Democrats who will make sure they are drawn to disadvantage the City’s small Republican voter base. A smaller Council with larger districts will not increase Republicans’ chances of winning an election. Indeed, the chance of Republicans having a high enough registration to win a Council seat will go down.
Both groups claim that their motives are “good governance”. But reducing the size of Council is estimated to save about $600,000 annually. This is just a drop in the bucket of a $420 million budget. If these groups wanted to change City government for the better, they should begin to push for privatization and outsourcing of services. They could also put pressure on the Legislature to reform Act 111 and eliminate prevailing wage laws. Any of these actions would reduce the cost of city government.
While Council’s spending is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed, it is not nearly as important as workers’ compensation abuse, an under funded pension system, or burdensome debt payments. Yet these topics are swept under the rug and never rise to the level of Council discussion. While avoidance of the real potential cost savers is a clever diversion, it is ultimately self-defeating. The piper must eventually be paid.
With the City’s many problems, it is interesting that City Republicans would team with the firefighters to target the size of Council. If these groups were really serious about helping the City, they would forget about the size of council and start addressing the real reasons Pittsburgh is in financial distress.
The firefighters’ position is understandable. They want to protect their lucrative pay and benefits—and their far out of proportion political power. Republicans, on the other hand, need a better thought out rationale than “good governance”—a buzzword concept that is not addressed by reducing the size of Council.
Each has their own agenda for reducing the size of Council. The firefighters’ union is still upset that the Act 47 designation has reduced their collective bargaining power. They may be interested in loading council with members who would be more favorable to removing the designation, thus restoring power to the union—a power they enjoyed when conspiring with then Mayor Murphy to land a sweetheart contract in 2001.
City Republicans haven’t sniffed a meaningful elected office for decades and would love to win a seat on Council. But would a smaller Council increase their chances of gaining a seat? If Council districts are redrawn, it will more than likely be by Democrats who will make sure they are drawn to disadvantage the City’s small Republican voter base. A smaller Council with larger districts will not increase Republicans’ chances of winning an election. Indeed, the chance of Republicans having a high enough registration to win a Council seat will go down.
Both groups claim that their motives are “good governance”. But reducing the size of Council is estimated to save about $600,000 annually. This is just a drop in the bucket of a $420 million budget. If these groups wanted to change City government for the better, they should begin to push for privatization and outsourcing of services. They could also put pressure on the Legislature to reform Act 111 and eliminate prevailing wage laws. Any of these actions would reduce the cost of city government.
While Council’s spending is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed, it is not nearly as important as workers’ compensation abuse, an under funded pension system, or burdensome debt payments. Yet these topics are swept under the rug and never rise to the level of Council discussion. While avoidance of the real potential cost savers is a clever diversion, it is ultimately self-defeating. The piper must eventually be paid.
With the City’s many problems, it is interesting that City Republicans would team with the firefighters to target the size of Council. If these groups were really serious about helping the City, they would forget about the size of council and start addressing the real reasons Pittsburgh is in financial distress.
The firefighters’ position is understandable. They want to protect their lucrative pay and benefits—and their far out of proportion political power. Republicans, on the other hand, need a better thought out rationale than “good governance”—a buzzword concept that is not addressed by reducing the size of Council.
