Do Philadelphia City Council seats have to go to a minority party? (Republic: city hall, home)

[KoNgFooCj]

Is there something in the constitution that says seats have to go to a minority party, or is there nothing of the sort?

[VTinPhilly]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Is there something in the constitution that says seats have to go to a minority party, or is there nothing of the sort?

Philadelphia's City Council consists of seventeen members--ten elected by "District" and seven elected "At Large". According to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter "not more than five candidates may be elected for Council-at Large by any one party or political body".

Thus the current Council-at Large makeup is five Democrats and two Republicans. As I understand it, on election day the two top "vote-getters" on the Republican At-Large slate are guaranteed a seat on Council. The two Republican At-Large members currently are David Oh and Al Taubenberger.

Nine of the ten District seats are currently held by Democrats. The 10th is the only District with a Republican council member--Brian J. O'Neil-- who is the Minority Leader.

So the current Philadelphia City Council is comprised of fourteen Democrats and three Republicans.

[KoNgFooCj]

Thanks

[maf763]

They actually don't have to be republicans. A third party or independent could capture those two seats.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by VTinPhilly

Philadelphia's City Council consists of seventeen members--ten elected by "District" and seven elected "At Large". According to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter "not more than five candidates may be elected for Council-at Large by any one party or political body".

Thus the current Council-at Large makeup is five Democrats and two Republicans. As I understand it, on election day the two top "vote-getters" on the Republican At-Large slate are guaranteed a seat on Council. The two Republican At-Large members currently are David Oh and Al Taubenberger.

Nine of the ten District seats are currently held by Democrats. The 10th is the only District with a Republican council member--Brian J. O'Neil-- who is the Minority Leader.

So the current Philadelphia City Council is comprised of fourteen Democrats and three Republicans.

I've begun to argue that we should consider a major revision of the City Charter to change how our Council is elected.

I'd argue for switching it to a slightly modified version of the way my hometown of Kansas City, Mo., elects its council.

That city has a council-manager government with a mayor who presides over and serves as the tie-breaking vote on a 12-member city council whose members are elected from six districts, two from each district.

One district Council member is elected by the voters living in the district. The other is elected by voters citywide. They are styled "Councilmember Jane Roe, P-2nd District," and "Councilmember John Doe, P-2nd district at large." (City elections are nonpartisan, with the top two finishers in the primary facing each other in the general.)

I think this system could be adapted to our strong-mayor form of government without changing the size of the Council as follows:

Instead of the current 10 districts, we redraw the boundaries to create eight districts, each with two Council members elected as above. Then we make the City Council President a separate seat, elected by voters citywide. (The only downside under our governmental structure is that an elected City Council President would probably see themselves, and the electorate might also see them, as a rival to the mayor.)

Any takers?

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

I've begun to argue that we should consider a major revision of the City Charter to change how our Council is elected.

I'd argue for switching it to a slightly modified version of the way my hometown of Kansas City, Mo., elects its council.

That city has a council-manager government with a mayor who presides over and serves as the tie-breaking vote on a 12-member city council whose members are elected from six districts, two from each district.

One district Council member is elected by the voters living in the district. The other is elected by voters citywide. They are styled "Councilmember Jane Roe, P-2nd District," and "Councilmember John Doe, P-2nd district at large." (City elections are nonpartisan, with the top two finishers in the primary facing each other in the general.)

I think this system could be adapted to our strong-mayor form of government without changing the size of the Council as follows:

Instead of the current 10 districts, we redraw the boundaries to create eight districts, each with two Council members elected as above. Then we make the City Council President a separate seat, elected by voters citywide. (The only downside under our governmental structure is that an elected City Council President would probably see themselves, and the electorate might also see them, as a rival to the mayor.)

Any takers?

No, since it would take an age to implement. We just need better people in the current set up. There is going to be a write-in candidate wrt Darrell Clarke, btw.

And why is it always necessary for you to include KC(yeah, we know it's your hometown. Lol) within texts that don't need any reference to it at all. But, since you are so focused on MO, tell its former Senator Clarie McCaskill to quit trying to be an analyst on MSNBC since she's worthless at it.

[1ondoner]

This showed up in my news feed a few days ago

https://billypenn.com/2019/08/01/ind...-council-seat/

Seven third-party candidates filed to run for City Council — with an eye for the two at-large seats held by Republicans.

Originally Posted by maf763

They actually don't have to be republicans. A third party or independent could capture those two seats.

[VTinPhilly]

Speaking of City Council, I think it is interesting to note that Philadelphia had two city councils at one time. In 1796 the state legislature empowered the city to have a "Common Council" of twenty members and a "Select Council" of twelve members. By the early 1900s the two had grown to 149 members and 41 members respectively--the largest municipal legislature in the United States. Ostensibly to improve and modernize Philadelphia's government, the state legislature enacted a new City Charter in 1919 which combined the two councils into one and dropped the membership to 21. As noted, Council today has 17 members--seven "At Large" ("Select") council members and fourteen "District" ("Common") council members.

When touring City Hall note that floor plans for both the second and fourth floors (north side) could once accommodate two separate councils. Originally, Councils were to meet on the second floor with Conversation Hall as a grand meeting room for the two (today's Mayor's Reception Room would have functioned as a council chamber). A lack of office space on this floor caused the legislature to move up to the fourth floor where today's City Council meets (in the room originally designed for just the "Common Council"). The beautiful old "Select Council" chamber, in use until 1919, still exists (next room to the east).

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by kyb01

No, since it would take an age to implement. We just need better people in the current set up. There is going to be a write-in candidate wrt Darrell Clarke, btw.

And why is it always necessary for you to include KC(yeah, we know it's your hometown. Lol) within texts that don't need any reference to it at all. But, since you are so focused on MO, tell its former Senator Clarie McCaskill to quit trying to be an analyst on MSNBC since she's worthless at it.

It's part of my being! Kansas Citians take the place with them no matter where they live, or for that matter, even if they never live there again.

Pardon my digression, but this serves to illustrate:

I was walking down Walnut Street one summer day about three years ago, wearing a black T-shirt I have that reads "I (heart) KC" in big letters.

I passed by two women seated in front of one of the bars (or was it one of the cafés?), and as I passed, one of them called out to me, "You're from Kansas City?"

I turned to see a older woman and a younger one wearing a "Worlds of Fun" T-shirt. (Worlds of Fun is Kansas City's theme park, smaller than but analogous to Six Flags Great Adventure. The late Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt built it in the early 1970s because he thought the city needed one.)

We immediately went into Old Home Week mode, talking about the schools we attended, where we lived, places we remembered fondly, and, of course, barbecue. I asked her what she was doing here, and she replied that she and her mother were visiting the city.

"And where do you live now?" I asked.

"Vermont."

Deal with it.

Now, back to why I mentioned changing the structure of the council:

Even if we get better people on Council, with the current structure, the 10 district Council members remain mini-mayors over their districts when it comes to development and construction thanks to "councilmanic privilege." The councilmanic veto is not totally useless, but from where I sit, it's used more often to reward friends and punish enemies, and it can and does thwart development that could benefit not only their districts but the city as a whole.

The seven at-large members are supposed to be looking out for the city as a whole, but they have no ability to stick up for a development that might benefit the city on the whole if the district Council member opposes it.

Electing an at-large member from each district would ensure that each district has a member that can focus on the district and one who can take the interests of the whole city into account.

That it might take a while to bring about the change is not IMO an argument against making it.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

It's part of my being! Kansas Citians take the place with them no matter where they live, or for that matter, even if they never live there again.

(OT deleted lol)



Now, back to why I mentioned changing the structure of the council:

Even if we get better people on Council, with the current structure, the 10 district Council members remain mini-mayors over their districts when it comes to development and construction thanks to "councilmanic privilege." The councilmanic veto is not totally useless, but from where I sit, it's used more often to reward friends and punish enemies, and it can and does thwart development that could benefit not only their districts but the city as a whole.

The seven at-large members are supposed to be looking out for the city as a whole, but they have no ability to stick up for a development that might benefit the city on the whole if the district Council member opposes it.

Electing an at-large member from each district would ensure that each district has a member that can focus on the district and one who can take the interests of the whole city into account.

That it might take a while to bring about the change is not IMO an argument against making it.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of it happening.