Reform-nation

We ask the three First District candidates the single most important question in their campaign.

by Tom Namako

buzz words

For all the myriad things "reform" can mean in Philadelphia politics, one thing it does not mean is Vince Fumo. The seven-term state senator, who retired last week under the weight of a 139-count indictment, was known for politicking the old-fashioned way: with little transparency and lots of side-room negotiations. Sometimes this style did his city good (revitalizing the Italian Market, establishing Community Courts) and sometimes, not so good (writing the law that legalized casinos).

Fumo's three challengers, activist Anne Dicker, attorney Larry Farnese and union boss John Dougherty all began their campaign against him with a message of reform, or, as Doc put it, "real change." But with Fumo out, these would-be reformers now have to turn their messages on one another. That leaves this burning question: How can a voter tell if a candidate is a true reformer in a race where every candidate is for "reform"? We asked all three to answer off-the-cuff.

"I think you need to look at what everyone's history is in terms of reform and what they've actually done. I have been the head of the reform movement, leading it for the last five years in Philadelphia," Dicker says, mentioning her co-founding of Philly for Change, and working on efforts like repealing the pay raise for state lawmakers and increasing the minimum wage. "I haven't just volunteered or given my own or anyone else's money to these issues — I've dedicated my life to reform.

"I listened to John Dougherty say his idea of reform is modeled on what Vince Fumo has done, except without the evil," she said. "Real reform introduces transparency into the government and political process."

"I'm the only one with a proven track record of reform. Anyone who knows my work at [electricians' union] Local 98 ... knows that. In the union I tore apart a bankrupt health-care program and turned it into a multimillion-dollar system that helps 30,000 people get care. Even my retired and sick members are covered fully," Dougherty says. "Also, all of my union members are qualified to install solar-paneled roofs, and one of my next buildings will have a green roof."

"Talk about reform is cheap," Dougherty says. "I'm really the only person in this race with a proven track record of changing the way things get done."

"The difference between me and all the others is that I will work to be [Mayor] Michael Nutter and his administration's voice in Harrisburg," says Farnese. "In terms of reform, I supported the ethics laws advocated by Nutter before he was mayor, and when I get to Harrisburg I'll work hard to create another set of my own ethics laws."

"In terms of whether or not [my opponents] are reformers, well, I'm a better candidate. I'm better than John Dougherty because he has proven he's not interested in change, and he recently sued the Board of Ethics to prove it. That makes him old-school politics. Anne Dicker, I have nothing negative to say about. Her people talk more about bringing problems to light than actually solving them."

Of course, there's an irony to all of this. Change- (or reform-) oriented campaigns have been quite the rage lately. The theme worked for Mayor Nutter, and it's the hallmark of Barack Obama's front-running bid for president. But the First District hasn't voted for a "change" in more than 30 years. Could the race go to the candidate who makes the least convincing case?

(tom.namako@citypaper.net)