Each election cycle, you’re likely to see questions on your ballot asking you to vote on changes to the Home Rule Charter. Similar to the federal government, which has the U.S. Constitution guiding its functions, Philadelphia has its own document setting the rules for how our government operates.
Jennifer Clendening, manager at Pew Charitable Trusts, broke down how the powerful document is working out 75 years after its creation and why Philadelphians should recognize its importance.
What functions of the city’s charter impact our day-to-day lives?
“When the charter was adopted…it really shifted a lot of authority from state to local government. It established a strong-mayor form of government in the city, allowing our mayor to have two terms, allowing our mayor to appoint department heads, and to propose the city's budget.
“The Home Rule Charter dictates the powers that the mayor has, the powers that the city council has, and it actually defines a lot of the roles and responsibilities for different departments, different positions, and how some of our government bodies operate.”
In the first 50 years, only four charter changes were passed. Since 2000, we have seen a dramatic increase. What were the initial changes in those early stages, and why did changes increase in the modern era?
“The Home Rule Charter really outlines pretty much everything for city governance. So if you want to make small changes to certain things, it likely needs to be done through an amendment process. The types of amendments have covered a pretty wide range of things that include creating or modifying offices. It includes providing details for certain city positions, the fiscal health of the city, and creating various funds.
“But it also includes things such as non-binding amendments, like referendums on public opinion, using gender-neutral language within the charter itself when referring to council members. The types of amendments have really run the gamut in recent years. And because the charter covers so much about city operations, if you're gonna change anything, you're likely going to have to go through a process to amend the charter in order to do it.”
What have been some of the most influential or most controversial amendments throughout these 75 years?
“The ‘Rule of Two’ limited hiring managers in the city to choosing from the two candidates for a city job that happened to score highest on the civil service exam, which really limited managers' abilities to hire for that role. [It] also limited accessibility, potentially, to government roles for Philadelphians seeking to work for their government. That was repealed several years ago and has really opened up opportunities for more and different types of candidates to work for the city.
“One that I think is most controversial would be the Resign to Run Rule. The rule was included in the original charter and at least twice in the past, has reached the ballot to propose either eliminating or modifying the Resign to Run rule…Both of those times, voters voted it down and wanted to keep the Resign to Run Rule.
“I do anticipate that that's one that we’ll continue to see debated moving forward.”
How successful has the charter been in its mission to curb corruption?
“The charter emerged after decades of political turmoil with the goal of [curbing corruption] and being a good governance effort. … [By] establishing merit-based hiring, [it] reduced nepotism and political patronage. It also strengthened the oversight of city finances and departments.”
“There have been efforts over its 75 years to improve upon that foundation and continue that through amendments that are voted on by the people of Philadelphia. One example being the establishment of the independent Board of Ethics… which is a body that enforces lobbying, campaign finance, and conflict of interest policies and regulations.
“It's a living, breathing document. I think the fact that Philadelphians are able to use it to voice their opinions and weigh in on the shape and direction of their city's governance also contributes to that.”
Was there anything in particular that had surprised you throughout your research?
“Learning more about the attempt in the 90s for more of a wholesale reform of the charter. That attempt, which included the development of a charter reform commission, proposed over 60 different changes within one full amendment to the charter. That effort wasn't successful. One of the main reasons is from our understanding, is that there really wasn't a clear message to residents about what those changes were trying to accomplish.
“Whether adjustments to the charter are made … or if there's an attempt at wholesale reform in the future — it's really important that residents understand what they're being asked to approve and…how it is for the betterment of the city. And that voters continue to be able to weigh in at the polls on whether the change is right for the city."
Do you think we could ever see a hard reboot of the city's constitution in our future?
“It remains to be seen. If it were to happen again, I think it's just really important to understand why. Why would the charter need to be reformed, and in what ways would that be for the betterment of the city?
“Make sure that the folks who it would impact, which is essentially the residents of Philadelphia, understand it and agree with it, and that they're able to weigh in on whether it should happen.”
