Tag Archives: Nevin Mindlin

TheBurg Cover: An Explanation of Our Parody

October 31, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

As many people may know, Norman Rockwell’s classic painting, “Freedom from Want,” depicts an American Thanksgiving dinner (above left) during the 1930s. In it, the family matriarch serves a feast to her hungry brood.

In our November issue, we used the painting, which has been parodied often, to humorously depict the current political situation in Harrisburg (above right). Our intention was to show Mayor Linda Thompson, with receiver William Lynch standing behind her, offering the main course (the transfer of political power in the city) to Democratic candidate Eric Papenfuse (and two of his principal allies, Joyce Davis and Karl Singleton) on the left side of the table and Republican candidate Dan Miller (and two of his principal allies, John Campbell and Nevin Mindlin) on the right side.

We thought this was a timely concept and cover, given that November is both the month of Thanksgiving and an important election in Harrisburg. In this space, we wished to make clear our intention so that it would not be misinterpreted.

—Lawrance Binda, Editor-in-Chief

The Next Mayor of Harrisburg: From financial recovery to the role of mayor, the two candidates give voters a clear choice.

October 31, 2013 | by Paul Barker

In recent decades, the general election for Harrisburg mayor has been something of a snoozer.

Most of the action rested in the primary, where this heavily Democratic city nominated the clear favorite come November. Could this year be different?

Indeed, it’s been a fascinating race.

The primary saw the late entry of businessman Eric Papenfuse, who quickly lapped incumbent Mayor Linda Thompson and her principal challenger, city Controller Dan Miller, to capture the Democratic nomination.

Then, just as the Democrats were rallying around their candidate, the saga took another turn. Independent Nevin Mindlin, regarded as the remaining credible alternative to Papenfuse, was tossed off the ballot following a petition challenge.

So up stepped Miller, who, while losing the Democratic nomination, had won the unchallenged Republican nomination by getting 196 write-in votes. With Mindlin off the ballot, Miller declared himself back in, setting up another Papenfuse/Miller contest for the Nov. 5 ballot.

To help Harrisburg voters, we asked each candidate four questions that we believe are relevant to the city at this time. We hope their answers, which we limited to 1,200 words for each candidate, will help voters who remain undecided make this important decision. –Lawrance Binda

Dan Miller

It was a Thursday in early August, and City Controller Dan Miller, who only days before had announced the end of his mayoral campaign, was appalled by what was happening to the November ballot. The nominating petitions of independent candidates Nate Curtis and Nevin Mindlin had been challenged in court. If the judge agreed, Eric Papenfuse’s only competition on Election Day would be write-in candidate Lewis Butts, who had reaped a mere 64 votes in the primary.

In a sense, it was politics as usual in Harrisburg, a solidly Democratic city where races are usually foregone conclusions by November. But Miller, who had lost by a 6-percent margin in May, saw a political opportunity. “It’s a civic responsibility for me to get on the ballot,” he said the next day at the county Bureau of Elections, where, with his $25 filing fee in hand, he posed for photos before accepting the Republican nomination. “Let’s have a choice.”

In the weeks since, that choice has sharpened. On Aug. 26, the state-appointed receiver, William B. Lynch, submitted his updated recovery plan for the city of Harrisburg. In the wake of that 350-page behemoth’s unveiling, the public sphere clamored with voices of celebration and dissent. Where Papenfuse joined the chorus of approval, no one objected more forcefully than Miller, who claimed he saw in the plan’s various forecasts and provisions the same shaky accounting, and the same abuse of the local taxpayer, that had afflicted city government for years.

Miller, a native of the area, is a partner at Miller Dixon Drake, an accounting firm at the corner of N. 2nd and North streets that he founded after he was fired for being gay. (The ordeal was the subject of a lengthy profile in the New Yorker.) In 1994, he ran for a Democratic Party committeeman post and won. In 2005, he was elected to City Council, and four years later, to his current post of city controller—in a race during which, it must be observed, his opponent was successfully thrown off the ballot by a challenge to his nominating petition.

On council, Miller had been a fervent critic of Mayor Steve Reed’s intemperate borrowing. As controller, he found himself in repeated squabbles with Reed’s successor, Mayor Linda Thompson. The acrimony, over issues such as the city’s direct deposit system, the Act 47 process and the sale of museum artifacts, lasted through the entirety of Thompson’s tenure. It even extended to the virtual sphere, where Miller maintained a website for his office separate from the city’s.

The site, which contains a useful trove of documents about city finances, reflects the common thread that runs through much of Miller’s career. His leadership style may look stubborn or stalwart, depending on where one stands. It can be summed up in a slogan that, like many slogans, carries a double edge: if Dan Miller wants a thing done, he’s going to do it himself.

Miller Q&A

Q. We’ll start with a broad one. What do you think is the proper role of Harrisburg’s municipal government, and how do you perceive the mayor’s function within it?

A. The role of any municipal government is to serve the needs of its citizens in the most efficient and effective way possible. That means providing basic city services that enhance the quality of life for the entire community. The mayor serves as the chief executive of the municipality and is therefore responsible for establishing an achievable vision, appointing staff who share that vision and who work cooperatively toward its implementation. The mayor is also responsible for ensuring that the entire workforce understands his or her goals and expectations, and that success can only be achieved by their cooperation and dedication to their jobs. By leading a workforce with high morale and pride in their accomplishments, improving basic city services and operating in an open and transparent manner, the mayor establishes an image for the city as a welcoming place to live, work and play.

Q. One of the problems that the current mayor has confronted is an inability to retain city employees. As mayor, how would you ensure that the city keep and attract top-notch professionals to perform its various services?

A. I have had to confront this issue for the past 20 years as a small business owner, city controller and consultant to hundreds of businesses. To attract the best and the brightest, we must offer a competitive salary. Beyond that, we must treat people fairly, with respect, and make them feel valued. I have had great success retaining employees in living wage jobs. Three of my four full-time associates have been with me 11 or more years. As controller, I was able to recruit the most knowledgeable finance professional in city government. We need to create an atmosphere where city employees feel appreciated and get satisfaction from doing their jobs serving the public. By achieving those goals, we will be able to attract and retain the high quality employees the city seeks to staff its resurgence.

Q. If you are elected, what will be your top three priorities upon taking office?

A. The next mayor’s highest priority must be taking steps to improve public safety and ensure delivery of basic city services in an efficient and effective manner. While the mayor has no direct control over the school district, it is essential to advocate for and improve city education as much as possible. He must provide steady fiscal stewardship while making the city cleaner, greener and more attractive. He must be a vocal advocate for the best interest of the residents of the city of Harrisburg within the context of the receiver’s plan.

Q. Perhaps the most significant development since the mayoral primary has been the unveiling, and subsequent confirmation in court, of the state-appointed receiver’s recovery plan for the city. What positives and/or negatives do you see in the Harrisburg Strong Plan, and how do you view the next mayor’s role with respect to the plan’s implementation?

A. The next mayor will be required to execute the terms and conditions of the receiver’s plan. It brings much appreciated state financial aid to the city but does so at a very high cost. The optimistic financial projections on which the plan is founded would not meet the standard set by most financial professionals. The loss of so much future self-determination about infrastructure investment and economic development is a major concern for me and should be of concern to every citizen. I have substantial concerns about the plan’s long-term economic viability. Creditors, as willing participants in the incinerator retrofit financing deal at the root of many of the city’s financial woes, should be required to make as many concessions as the city’s taxpayers are being asked to make.

Despite these problems, the plan will have to be implemented in the most advantageous manner benefiting Harrisburg residents. This will require a skilled financial professional to balance the budget within confined limitations. I am the only candidate with the knowledge, experience and ability to achieve this goal.

Eric Papenfuse

Upon winning the Democratic primary in May, Eric Papenfuse, who had seen his share of electoral losses, seemed poised at last for success. He had run unsuccessfully for City Council in 2009, and again for county commissioner in 2011, where he lost by a mere 12 votes in the primary. But on the night of May 21, when he announced his victory at the Midtown Scholar bookstore, the business he built over the past dozen years, he all but assumed the mantle of mayor-elect. After saluting his former opponents, he spoke of plans for transition, including a series of public meetings on the city’s most pressing issues.

By the end of the summer, Papenfuse’s general election victory had begun to look less certain. Dan Miller returned to the race on the Republican ticket, taking with him a slice of traditionally Democratic voters. The late write-in candidacy of Aaron Johnson threatened to gobble up another chunk of that constituency. Meanwhile, the race began to be dominated by another development: the release of the receiver’s financial recovery plan.

In October, at the Harrisburg Hope debate, the opening question reflected the newly polarized terrain: were the candidates for or against Harrisburg Strong? The recovery plan had become a test of the candidates’ sympathies, which were measured by the same bitterness, hopes and suspicions that had defined city politics for years.

Papenfuse, meanwhile, tried to steer the focus to the issues he’d outlined in May. He held his public meetings on crime, blight, economic development and education, which he tended to conduct in a classroom style. The meeting on blight was essentially a two-hour policy discussion, where a handful of experts fielded residents’ questions on trash, utility rates and sewer mapping.

Papenfuse, a Baltimore native, has been increasingly involved in Harrisburg politics since settling in the city with his family in 1999. In his previous campaigns, he was a vocal critic of former Mayor Steve Reed. On more than one occasion, he testified about predatory loans knowingly entered into by the Harrisburg Authority, a process he witnessed as a member of the Authority’s board. His mayoral campaign, in contrast, has been defined by a technocratic approach. He has built his campaign around a promise to govern the city with informed, forward-looking initiatives.

Of course, the dominant issues of a political contest are rarely a candidate’s to choose. Since May, Papenfuse has had to navigate a series of surprises. Months ago, he expected to face independent Nevin Mindlin; he now finds himself in a heated rematch with Miller, who has portrayed him as an ally of moneyed interests and Harrisburg’s familiar power brokers. It must be a frustrating reversal for Papenfuse, long the crusading outsider. His challenge, in this fractious capital, is classically political: to run the campaign he always wanted while standing on shifting ground.

Papenfuse Q&A

Q. We’ll start with a broad one. What do you think is the proper role of Harrisburg’s municipal government, and how do you perceive the mayor’s function within it?

A. Harrisburg’s municipal government’s primary role is simple: to serve the city’s residents. The municipal government fulfills this responsibility by ensuring people within the city limits are able to live and work in safety and security. To effectively carry out its mission, the city needs a mayor with a broad vision, one who fully embraces the importance of collaborative relations with neighboring townships and counties.

As head of city government, Harrisburg’s mayor is the face of the city. The mayor sets the proper tone and atmosphere to nurture pride in our history and hope for our future. Harrisburg needs positive, inclusive leadership now more than ever as it emerges from financial and political catastrophe. As mayor, I will provide that leadership and create a new image for our city at home and throughout the nation. Above all, I will ensure Harrisburg’s municipal government stays connected to the people, transparent in governing and prudent in management of our budget and resources.

Harrisburg needs a visionary leader in City Hall to take advantage of the second chance the city has been given through the “Strong Plan.” Harrisburg needs a leader who can do more than simply add and subtract. We need someone who can inspire people and galvanize a community. As mayor, I will inspire a new birth in our city as well as ensure the efficient functioning of municipal government.

Harrisburg needs the kind of leadership I can provide. It needs a leader who understands the importance of promoting business and investment to create jobs and provide goods and services. It needs a leader passionate about promoting quality education for our children as the only path to economic vitality. And it needs a leader who will unite the diverse communities and cultures within our city so that we all thrive.

A. Any successful businessman knows the best way to retain quality employees is to pay them fairly and treat them well. It’s no different for city employees. They need to be paid fairly, treated with respect and inspired to serve the people of Harrisburg. As a businessman, I know that my enterprise is only as good as the people who keep it running. I also know the importance of maintaining high morale, and the Midtown Scholar bookstore has been lauded as one of the best places to work in Harrisburg. Of course, as we nurture high morale, it is important to address the serious salary issues that impede attracting the best and brightest to Harrisburg. We must find creative ways to increase salaries for professional positions in city government while not overburdening taxpayers. I am investigating ways to enlist the help of corporations to supplement salaries of key city workers through public-private partnerships. This is an idea that has been tried successfully in other municipalities and that might help Harrisburg attract the kind of talent it will need to get the city moving again. Public-private partnerships have the potential to augment scant resources in city government and bring in expertise and talent that will be sorely needed in the years ahead.

Q. If you are elected, what will be your top three priorities upon taking office?

A. Our top three will be attracting business and investment, crime and safety, and advocating for education. Beautifying our neighborhoods also is a priority as it impacts quality of life and economic development.

One of the most important things the next mayor can do is create a business-friendly atmosphere to create jobs for the people of Harrisburg. Being hostile to business and negative to investment is the wrong message for any mayor to send. I am an advocate for restoring pride and prosperity to our city. We can’t do that by pitting “Main Street” against “Wall Street,” as some have done in divisive, political rhetoric. We need both business and labor working side by side with the common goal of making better lives for us all. I am a strong advocate of labor and unions, but I am not foolish enough to believe that Harrisburg can be prosperous again without ensuring businesses feel welcome. I plan to create a Department of Economic and Community Development that will support business and investment and make it easier for small businesspeople to thrive.

Unless we reinvigorate our police department and reduce the crime rate, businesses will continue to shy away from our city. Ensuring strong leadership in the police department and accountability of police officers are at the very top of my priorities.

And while the mayor has no direct role in our schools, I will be a tireless advocate for our children, teachers and parents. The mayor can inspire businesses to support our schools through creative investment programs and by helping teachers feel appreciated. I have called for keeping school libraries open late to provide a safe haven for youth after school. As father of three small children, being an advocate for education is not only a political priority, it is a personal mission.

A. The next mayor will have to implement the Harrisburg Strong Plan, which is essentially a business plan for Harrisburg’s economic development. I am the only candidate with the business acumen and expertise to be able to effectively institute a business plan for the city of Harrisburg. Right now, Harrisburg needs more than an accountant. It needs someone experienced in business development who can inspire and stimulate growth. I built a successful business from scratch and stimulated the economic revitalization of Midtown Harrisburg. I can do that for the rest of the city and carry out the vision of the Harrisburg Strong Plan. I am the only candidate on the ballot who has pledged to work with the receiver to support the Harrisburg Strong Plan. As a businessman, I have the experience to be able to envision the significant possibilities the Harrisburg Strong Plan represents for the residents. As a community leader, I am encouraged at how the city’s leaders and debtors were able to reach common ground; and as a city resident, I am heartened that there is hope for Harrisburg to rise again. The plan is not perfect, as its creators acknowledge. A compromise is never perfect, and some of the plan’s failings may become known only in time. But for a city facing the bleak prospect of bankruptcy and possibly decades of financial uncertainty, the Harrisburg Strong Plan is a political, financial and morale boost for the city at a time when it so desperately needs hope. What Harrisburg needs is a mayor with a “can-do” attitude who will aggressively work to help the plan succeed . . . not someone who wants to see it fail. What Harrisburg needs is a mayor who will look past his own self-serving interests and work for the good of the people of our great city.

Blog Response: Former mayoral candidate Nevin Mindlin reacts to “Stick to the Plan.”

October 30, 2013 | by Nevin Mindlin

After reading David Black’s response (to Paul Barker’s blog post, “Stick to the Plan“), I thought, “I get it, ‘Don’t worry about habeas corpus, just worry about the hanging!’”

Control over an economy, and the comprehensive planning of how that economy is shaped, has always been a political concern. Who is in control of the planning is exceedingly important, as history has revealed, even in our own community. Ironically, that subject was just recently addressed in an article entitled, “China’s Coming Economic Slowdown,” by Josef Joffe in The Wall Street Journal’s Weekend “Review” section, Oct. 25, 2013. In that article, Mr. Joffe discusses “rent seeking,” the economic term for an economy that is “guided” or managed by government, and explains that “authoritarian or ‘guided’ modernization plants the seeds of its own demise.”

Mr. Joffe cites the social scientist Francis Fukuyama, who, reflecting on the French ancien régime, explained the concept of rent seeking, as follows: “In such a society, the elites spend all of their time trying to capture public office in order to secure a rent for themselves”—in effect, seeking to gain more economic return through political control than a free market would grant. Put in other words, rent-seeking is “the game of the mighty” to “convert public power into personal profit.” The phraseology that I have used to describe Harrisburg’s political game is “privatizing profits and socializing losses.”

“Rent seeking” is an incestuous political game where government and favored, organized interests, work together. Government raises the banner of economic advantage through planning and managing the advertised outcome; in turn, favored interests seek and are given more power in the form of monopolies, subsidies, tax breaks and protection so as to increase their “rents.” “Licenses, building permits, capital, import barriers and anticompetitive regulations go to the state’s own or to favored players, breeding corruption and inefficiency.” And, as Mr. Joffe concludes, “This widening web of collusion breeds either stagnation or revolt.”

This is true whether under socialism/communism or corporate capitalism. It is true whether in China or in the United State under an increasingly managed economy. It is true at the national, state and local levels. The regime “rent-seekers” include both the Democratic and Republican parties.

You can watch it play out in Harrisburg, first under Reed, then under Thompson, and now the hope is Papenfuse (the “new face of the old regime”)–“trying to capture public office in order to secure a rent for themselves.” Just look at the comprehensive planning process they tried foisting on us– both the LT and Papenfuse gangs together–trying to plot out how they intend to plan the projects and secure the grants, loans, subsidies and tax breaks that go with them. It is all just part of the “Harrisburg Wrong Plan.”

Nevin Mindlin is a former independent candidate for Harrisburg mayor.

October News Digest

October 29, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

Harrisburg Begins Planning Process

Harrisburg last month kicked off an 18-month effort to draft a new comprehensive plan by holding the first of 20 planned public meetings.

The updating of the city’s comprehensive plan and the development of a housing strategy are two initiatives included in the city’s Harrisburg Strong recovery plan. The comprehensive plan will address many elements that have far-reaching effects on Harrisburg’s future, such as land use, housing, infrastructure and community facilities, said Mayor Linda Thompson.

The city has hired a planning and community development firm, Mullin & Lonergan Associates, to assist with the preparation and adoption of the comprehensive plan, while the economic development element of the plan will be conducted with support from the Harrisburg Regional Chamber of Commerce & CREDC.

Earlier this year, the city began preparations for the planning effort by establishing a steering committee that will guide the comprehensive plan. To date, the committee has met twice with Mullin & Lonergan staff to help develop a scope of work for the comprehensive plan.

The launch of the process to develop a new comprehensive plan was not without controversy.

At the first public meeting, former mayoral candidate Nevin Mindlin asserted that City Council, not the administration, was required by statute to initiate changes to the comprehensive plan.

City Council President Wanda Williams later said that she agreed with Mindlin’s view and would take steps to secure the council’s involvement. Ultimately, City Council will have to approve changes to the comprehensive plan.

In addition, as of press time, City Controller Dan Miller had not yet signed off on the contract with Mullin & Lonergan.

The administration expects more than 20 public meetings to be held during the comprehensive plan process.

City Nearly Out of Money Again

Harrisburg will run out of money by year-end unless the city quickly completes key elements of its financial recovery plan.

City Council attorney Neil Grover last month warned council members that they must quickly pass legislation that will lead to the sale of the city’s incinerator and the long-term lease of its parking assets.

The Harrisburg Strong recovery plan is expected to refill the city’s nearly empty coffers so it can meet payroll and pay its vendors.

However, first, the council must finish approving enabling legislation. Afterwards, the parking and incinerator deals must close and the related bonds must be marketed and sold, a lengthy process that could bleed into next year.

Harrisburg has nearly run out of money every year for the past three years. In the end, it has been able to continue to operate, but only because it stopped payment on its general obligation bonds and cobbled together several last-minute fixes.

Development Projects Given Go-Ahead

Numerous projects in Harrisburg are slated to get off the ground after the City Council gave them the green light last month.

The council unanimously approved the following land development plans:

A major expansion of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA) building at 211 N. Front St. onto two adjacent lots. The $11.5 million project includes the construction of an eight-story addition, the renovation of the historic Hickok Mansion at 201 N. Front St. and the demolition of a mid-century addition to the mansion.
An update to the building plan for the Susquehanna Art Museum in Midtown to include the creation of a sculpture garden at 1415 N. 3^rd St. Work already has begun on the $6.2 million project at the site of the former Keystone/Fulton bank building at N. 3^rd and Calder streets. With the approval, SAM will raze the existing dilapidated building at 1415 N. 3^rd and use the parcel for a construction staging area before turning it into a sculpture garden upon completion of the new museum, which itself includes the old bank building and a 25,280-square-foot addition.
A new building expected to house an Italian-style restaurant and wine bar at the corner of State and N. 2^nd streets, developed by WCI Partners. Under the current plan, the restaurant would feature a single story with a mezzanine for about 60 diners, focused on gourmet pizza.
The conversion of vacant office space into 14 one-bedroom apartments at 128-130 Locust St., developed by WCI Partners. The adjacent buildings, about two centuries old, were originally designed as houses before being turned into office space many years ago.

New Businesses on Cameron Street

Cameron Street continues its slow evolution into a nightlife district with the recent approval of liquor licenses for two new businesses.

Last month, the Harrisburg City Council approved the transfer of a liquor license for the Blue Front Lounge, which plans to move from Steelton to 819 S. Cameron St. in December or January.

Owner Richard Hefelfinger said he will transform the first floor of the 8,000-square-foot, circa-1940 brick building into a blues club with a full restaurant. The second floor will feature a pub-type atmosphere with an area devoted to darts and dart tournaments, he said.

Hefelfinger said he decided to move because the building is vastly larger than the snug spot on Front Street where Blue Front Lounge has been located for three years. The new location also has ample parking and is not in a residential area.

Over the years, the property has had a variety of uses. It once belonged to Bishop McDevitt High School and long housed American Quick Print. It sold in March for $240,000 to local developer and businessman Phil Dobson, who said he is a partner in the business.

Just down the road, Dobson also bought the site of the former Harrisburg River Rescue and plans to transform it into an entertainment and events space called the Main Stage Events Center.

Dobson said he expects to attract major acts to a new performing arts theater in the 23,000-square-foot building at 1119 S. Cameron St., which sold in May for $385,000. The space will be able to hold 1,200 to 1,500 people and should open by mid-2014, he said.

Dobson, an owner of Savannah’s on Hanna, said he is optimistic about the Cameron Street corridor because it’s just off Route 83 and has ample parking, both necessary for attracting people from greater Harrisburg and beyond.

“If I want to be a regional destination, I have to be in a location that is easily accessible,” he said. “Here, you are literally a block from the highway.”

He added that he hoped his new ventures would encourage people to come to Harrisburg not just to listen to music or compete in a dart tournament, but to eat, visit and stay.

City Council approved the transfer of a liquor license into Harrisburg for the proposed entertainment venue in September.

City Applies for Funds

Roads, bikes and firefighters would benefit from several funding applications authorized last month by the Harrisburg City Council.

The council directed the administration to apply for:

A $1.6 million federal grant that would fund the hiring of 10 new full-time firefighters over the next two years. The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program is designed to help localities fortify the ranks of their trained firefighters.
A $350,000 low-interest loan from the Dauphin County Infrastructure Bank for various paving projects in Bellevue Park, on S. 17^th Street in south Harrisburg and on Hale Avenue near the city line.
A $3,200 matching grant to participate in the Regional Bicycle Connections program with several other municipalities in Dauphin and Lebanon counties. The goal of the grant and program is to create safe, connected bicycle routes to promote cycling.

Bill Seeks Full Funding

Harrisburg’s state lawmakers introduced a bill last month that would guarantee the city “full funding” for the emergency services it provides to the state Capitol complex.

Sen. Rob Teplitz and Rep. Patty Kim said they would seek to commit the state to an annual appropriation of at least $5 million, which they said is the cost to Harrisburg of protecting the complex’s 40 buildings and thousands of workers from fire and other emergencies. In subsequent years, the amount would be indexed to the inflation rate.

This state funding also is built into the Harrisburg Strong financial recovery plan for the city.

Court Rejects Miller Objections

A Commonwealth Court judge last month rejected numerous objections to the Harrisburg Strong financial recovery plan filed by City Controller Dan Miller.

In her opinion, Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter said that Miller filed his objections too late and that, in any case, he lacked standing to make the objections. She also said that it’s vital that the plan’s implementation not be delayed.

Harrisburg receiver William Lynch requested that Miller’s objections be stricken. Mayor Linda Thompson, Dauphin County and several creditors backed Lynch in his response.

In his filing with the Commonwealth Court, Miller objected to the recovery plan because, he said, it relies on numerous assumptions, is incomplete and unduly burdens city taxpayers.

Miller is the Republican candidate for mayor in this month’s general election.

Fees Hiked for Burglar Alarms, Fire Services

If your burglar alarm goes off by accident, you will face a steep fee hike for the emergency response.

Harrisburg City Council last month increased the charge for a second false alarm from $10 to $50. A third false alarm also will cost $50, up from $25. Fourth and fifth false alarms will cost $100 each with charges of $150 for each subsequent false alarm.

Council also imposed new or higher fees for a variety of services provided by the city’s Fire Bureau. For instance, the city now will charge a new $100 fee for a one-hour bonfire or $175 for a two-hour bonfire.

False fire alarms fees have increased from $50 to $150 for the third and fourth false alarm and from $100 to $250 for the fifth to seventh false alarms. Other fees remain the same.

Councilwoman Eugenia Smith said she would make sure that all fees related to public safety services would be posted at the city’s website, www.harrisburgpa.gov.

Philbin Gets Official Nod

Robert Philbin will have a city job into early next year, as the Harrisburg City Council last month confirmed his appointment as chief operating officer through Feb. 1.

In June, Mayor Linda Thompson appointed Philbin to the post following the sudden resignation of the city’s first COO, Ricardo Mendez-Saldivia. Philbin had been acting COO since June.

Philbin, who previously served as Thompson’s spokesman, said he will return to his position as marketing and communications officer with Capital Area Transit following his stint with the city. Thompson’s term as mayor ends in January.

Parking Changes for Reily Street

Harrisburg has changed the parking rules for a section of Midtown to accommodate two new restaurants.

The City Council last month voted to restrict parking to two hours during weekdays on both sides of Reily Street between N. 5^th and N. 6^th streets and on both sides of N. 6^th Street between Boyd and Reily streets.

Council members took the action so that patrons of two restaurants located within The 1500 Condominium could park more easily. Council President Wanda Williams said that state workers often have parked on those blocks all day long, preventing others from using the street spaces.

The new rules should help facilitate parking for diners at both Café 1500, which reopened recently under a new operator, and Crawdaddy’s, which moved last month into the building, relocating from two blocks away.

Changing Hands: September Property Sales in Harrisburg

Bellevue Rd., 2028: N. Emerick to K. Feucht, $48,000

Benton St., 520: J. Phillips to L. Holmes, $69,900

Boas St., 438: T. & E. Buda to R. Kane, $160,000

Conoy St., 110: S. & M. Boyle to M. & S. McLees, $145,000

Croyden Rd., 2986: D. Folk to PA Deals LLC, $42,000

Delaware St., 267: B. & A. Jennings to J. Renue, $128,000

Derry St., 1266: C. Lanza to D. Shah, $34,000

Derry St., 1950: Mussani & Co. to Next Generation Trust Services, $50,000

Edward Rd., 203: D. Morand to M. Gabler, $78,900

Fillmore St., 616: PA Deals LLC to Bholay Nath Properties LLC, $73,000

Green St., 2033: N. Patrick to A. Holland, $45,000

Green St., 3240: E. Mentzer to J. Mueller, $109,900

Holly St., 1944: M. Hampton to J. & B. Readinger, $43,000

Kensington St., 2320: J. Kramer to M. & J. Cramer, $68,900

Kensington St., 2436: T. & A. Teter to L. Kim, $63,000

Logan St., 2421: K. & G. Corker to K. Macrate, $60,000

Market St., 829, 1001: Patriot News Co. to Equity Trust Co., $500,000

Market St., 2105: M. Mettenet Trust to J. Lohlun & E. Ruggieri, $103,000

N. 2^nd St., 3214: P. Harper to A. Parks & I. Silva, $149,900

N. 2^nd St., 3224: M. Harrison to K. Petrich, $85,000

N. 3^rd St., 2120: Fannie Mae to K. Fillingame, $60,000

N. 4^th St., 2711: P. & M. Foltz to B. & M. Hayes, $93,500

N. 4^th St., 3009: Bank of New York Trust Co. to P. & C. Ambrose, $52,000

N. 16^th St., 1301: E. & P. Cumberbatch to Y. Morel-Pena, $36,000

N. 17^th St., 99: T. Pham to J. Glick, $47,700

N. Front St., 1419: River Front Development Group LLC to M. Kurowski, $189,000

N. Front St., 1525, Unit 514: K. Alvanitakis to A. Firoozmand, $98,500

Pennwood Rd., 3205: R. & R. Yost to C. Lebo, $99,000

Rumson Dr., 261: Fannie Mae to C. & A. Davis, $38,101

Rumson Dr., 2991: B. Minter et al to Trusted Source Capital LLC, $31,000

S. 18^th St., 1235: M. Phuong to M. Quinn, $73,900

Vernon St., 1537: T&R Property LLC to VanDougbar Ventures LLC, $31,250

Vernon St., 1539: T&R Property LLC to VanDougbar Ventures LLC, $32,500

Woodbine St., 220: T&R Property LLC to VanDougbar Ventures LLC, $33,750

Source: Dauphin County, for property sales of greater than $30,000. Data is assumed to be accurate.

What Parties Do

October 4, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

So, Nevin’s gone. Officially.

The decision that came down today from the Commonwealth Court ensured that independent candidate Nevin Mindlin will not be on the November ballot.

Furthermore, he stated that he will not run a write-in campaign, calling it “the ploy that political parties use to fake democracy and political participation and to dupe the unsuspecting public into believing that they have choices.”

Indeed, the political parties do control the process, though it seems surprising to me that this would be news. The two major parties have had a lock on power in this country for about 160 years. After savaging one another, their next priority is to preserve their duopoly.

I have repeatedly stated that Harrisburg is worse off for not having Mindlin on the ballot, and I continue to believe that. I had hoped the court would rule in favor of ballot inclusion. That said: not filling out a section of a nomination petition that says, “All nomination papers shall specify,” is a ticket to getting kicked off.

Why? Because, following a nomination deadline, the first thing that party operatives and candidate supporters do is drive down to the county courthouse and examine the nomination papers of opponents. If they find an error, a challenge invariably ensues.

You may not like this; I don’t like this. However, it’s a basic fact of running for office in this country. Heck, Dan Miller ran unopposed for city controller in 2009 after his presumptive primary opponent, long-time Controller James McCarthy, had his petition challenged and then denied for missing a deadline by three days. And petition challenges have sunk several other would-be candidates, just in this town, just in this election cycle.

So, you can believe, as Mindlin does, that “moneyed interests” and “the established regime” are behind his ballot access woes. You can believe that Mindlin just made a mistake. You can believe that the Dauphin County Bureau of Elections gave him bum advice on filling out his petition.

But, really, it doesn’t much matter. If you want to run for office, and a petition asks you to name a “committee to fill vacancies,” name one. When it says to file by a certain date, file by that date. When it states a residency requirement, make sure you meet it.

Know that, if you hope to be a candidate and don’t follow the law’s strict guidelines, you will get challenged. Political pros and party operatives would consider it the height of malpractice not to challenge a petition when they’re able. That’s just what happens; that’s just what they do.

A Debate Debate

October 2, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

Alan Kennedy-Shaffer (left) at a Harrisburg Hope forum earlier this year with Geno Veno, the school district’s chief recovery officer.

Note: Just after this was posted, Republican candidate Dan Miller announced that he would take part in tomorrow’s Harrisburg Hope mayoral debate, which now will be moderated by Destini Hodges, vice president of Harrisburg Hope. The event starts at 6 p.m. at HACC’s Cooper Student Center.

Candidate debates are supposed to inform and enlighten voters, not become issues themselves.

Unfortunately, in Harrisburg, the latter has happened repeatedly, as debates in the primary–and now in the general election–have become infused with personal and political drama that threatens to overshadow the substance of the events.

Tomorrow night, Harrisburg Hope holds the first highly anticipated mayoral debate of the general election season, and it now seems that, instead of a spirited exchange of ideas, Democratic candidate Eric Papenfuse may have the room largely to himself, delivering comments unchallenged by others.

According to organizer Alan Kennedy-Shaffer, Republican nominee Dan Miller still has not said if he plans to attend (he also has not officially turned down the invitation, so Kennedy-Shaffer isn’t sure whether or not Miller will be there). Meanwhile, independent Nevin Mindlin said late yesterday that he had changed his mind and would not participate.

In turning down the debate, Mindlin focused on Kennedy-Shaffer’s support of Papenfuse, in addition to the role of the Democratic Party in challenging Mindlin’s nominating petition.

Indeed, Kennedy-Shaffer is a Papenfuse booster, as well as a party activist. But he’s also president of Harrisburg Hope and, in that role, has proven himself to be a highly capable, fair moderator who is sincerely interested in helping to inform the people of Harrisburg on a wide range of public policy issues. Through the years, Harrisburg Hope has capably hosted other candidates’ nights, as well as held forums on subjects as varied as the city’s debt crisis and the legal status of marijuana. In fact, Mindlin and Miller both have participated in past Harrisburg Hope events.

As I’ve written previously, I respect all the mayoral candidates and believe it’s a tragedy that Mindlin was thrown off the ballot after his nominating petition was successfully challenged (his appeal is still pending before the Commonwealth Court). However, without Miller and Mindlin attending, the real losers will be not Kennedy-Shaffer or Harrisburg Hope, but the people of this city.

In a month, residents of Harrisburg will go to the polls to elect a new mayor, and they need as much information as possible to make the best decision. Debates provide the opportunity for voters to hear the candidates speak unscripted, perhaps even field unexpected questions. Otherwise, voters are left with little more than canned campaign rhetoric and toxic direct mail, neither of which is very helpful.

In a representative government, debates are vital tools in helping voters decide who will lead them, who will make public policy, who will better spend their tax dollars and more efficiently provide their services. Debates should be an instrument for the common good, a way for candidates to reach and inform voters. Instead, they’ve become another sign of the city’s division, another casualty of its highly personal politics.

Lawrance Binda is editor-in-chief of TheBurg.

Beyond Their Control

August 29, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

In the course of a long political season, outside events sometimes monkey with candidates’ best efforts to keep their campaigns on message and tightly controlled.

An extreme example is in New York, where another round of below-the-belt selfies seems finally to have sunk the campaign of Anthony Weiner, perhaps the Big Apple’s least camera-shy person.

On Monday, Harrisburg had its own major outside event, one that may override every other issue leading up to the Nov. 5 general election. Receiver William Lynch issued the “Harrisburg Strong Plan,” a comprehensive solution to the city’s financial crisis.

For months, Lynch had telegraphed that his plan was about to be filed with the Commonwealth Court, which is slated to hold a hearing on it on Sept. 19. However, the plan’s contents and creativity took many people by surprise, including, it seems, the city’s mayoral hopefuls.

At first, both Democrat Eric Papenfuse and Republican Dan Miller issued rather brief statements on the plan, but later expanded on their comments. Not surprisingly, Papenfuse gave it a qualified thumbs up, while Miller gave it a qualified thumbs down (here, here and here). Both men say they’d like more information as the process plays out, but the trend seems pretty clear and in keeping with their stances during the primary (Papenfuse, pro-receiver, anti-bankruptcy; Miller, anti-receiver, pro-bankruptcy).

When people step into a voting booth, many things cross their minds. Some vote on whether or not they like a person, which is a fair criteria, particularly in a small place like Harrisburg, where many voters know the candidates personally.

Other people may be influenced by what they’ve read in a newspaper or heard during a debate. In the mayoral debates to come, it will be interesting to see how the candidates respond to the inevitable charges that will be hurled at them. For instance, Papenfuse better have a good answer to the charge that he’s a lackey of big money, while Miller should brush up on his response that he’s a liberal Democrat opportunistically running as a Republican.

But, in the end, I suspect that the race will be won or lost on how the people of Harrisburg feel about the receiver’s plan come the first week of November. By then, the Commonwealth Court, almost certainly, will have approved it, and City Council likely will have passed a rash of enabling legislation. The plan should be well on its way to implementation.

If the general spirit has been uplifted by the plan, and it seems workable, Papenfuse should have a clear advantage in the general. On the other hand, Miller, who I believe starts this campaign at a disadvantage by losing in the primary and needing to run as a Republican, might be able to make up ground if the complex plan begins to unravel.

In the interim, Papenfuse will need to speak convincingly about why city residents will have to endure a multi-year increase in the earned income tax rate and a head-spinning parking meter fee hike. Miller will have to explain how municipal bankruptcy (a black box of unknowables that could take years to resolve at great cost) is a better deal for Harrisburg. He also needs to state clearly what, if anything, he could and would do to change Harrisburg Strong upon becoming mayor in January.

At the moment, my sense is that most residents are willing to give Lynch the benefit of the doubt. They’re tired of the dysfunction of the city and the disorder to their lives. Meanwhile, they’ve largely become (unhappily) accustomed to higher taxes as a price to resolve the years-long financial crisis. More than anything, they want a new beginning, a new era for the city and for themselves. That feeling, though, could change fast. If the plan gets bogged down or, worse, begins to fall apart, hope quickly could turn to anger and despair.

The candidates are staking their positions in this battle, giving voters a distinct choice. However, events beyond their control ultimately may decide who is right — and may well determine who will be the next mayor of Harrisburg.

Note: Independent Nevin Mindlin also expects to run for Harrisburg mayor. You can read his position on the Harrisburg Strong Plan here. His status as a candidate is unclear after a Dauphin County judge recently threw out his nominating petition. The hearing on his appeal is slated for Sept. 12 in Commonwealth Court. If he does not succeed in his appeal, he has said he may mount a write-in campaign.

August News Digest

August 29, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

Judge Tosses Mindlin, Curtis Candidacies

A Dauphin County judge last month upheld challenges to the independent candidacies of Nevin Mindlin and Nate Curtis, throwing both men off the Nov. 5 general election ballot for Harrisburg mayor.

Judge Bernard Coates Jr. ruled Mindlin’s candidacy invalid because he failed to fill out a mandatory section of his nominating petition. He rejected Curtis’ petition for failing to meet the city’s residency requirement.

The decision came after both Mindlin and Curtis defended their candidacies in court before Coates.

Mindlin said that he did not fill out a section of the petition because it seemed to pertain only to political parties, and he was running as an independent. He said that advice he received from the Dauphin County Bureau of Elections backed up his belief.

Nonetheless, Coates, citing legal precedent, rejected that argument, asserting that filling out that section was a requirement under law. Curtis also failed to fill out that section, but Coates rejected his petition first for not complying with the mandatory one-year residency requirement for candidates.

Mindlin said that he would appeal the ruling, which was not decided at press time.

Miller Back in Race

City Controller Dan Miller last month re-entered the race for Harrisburg mayor, days after saying he would not run again.

Miller lost the Democratic primary in May, but gained a slot on the November ballot by earning 196 write-in votes as a Republican.

Since his primary loss to Eric Papenfuse, Miller had not publicly stated if he’d run on the GOP side. At a press conference, he finally publicly declined the opportunity, only to change his mind four days later following petition challenges to independent candidates Nevin Mindlin and Nate Curtis.

Mindlin and Curtis eventually lost their challenges and were thrown off the ballot.

Miller, who is a Democratic state committeeman, will now run as the Republican against Democrat Papenfuse during the Nov. 5 general election.

Carter Named Police Chief

Twenty-five-year force veteran Thomas Carter was named acting chief of police last month following the retirement of former Chief Pierre Ritter.

Carter, who was promoted to captain just three months ago, was selected from among the department’s three captains, who all were interviewed for the post, said Mayor Linda Thompson. Most recently, he had headed up the department’s criminal investigation division.

Thompson said she has no plans to nominate Carter for full chief, so he will remain “acting” chief until the end of her mayoral term. The next mayor, she said, should be granted the opportunity to appoint his own police chief.

“I’m here to do a job here and now,” said an emotional Carter as he was introduced as the new acting chief. “The only thing I care about is serving the people of this city.”

Ritter, another long-time Harrisburg police officer, retired from the force unexpectedly after three-and-a-half years as chief.

Recovery Plan Set to Hit Court

The Commonwealth Court this month is expected to begin consideration of elements of Harrisburg’s financial recovery plan.

Receiver William Lynch said last month he expected to bring some—or all—of the plan to the court for approval.

The court must OK all changes to the original proposal approved last year. These include the details of deals involving the incinerator, the parking system and the water/sewer system. Other key elements of the plan include renegotiation of contracts with the city’s three labor unions and possible concessions from the city’s numerous creditors.

City Council also must pass enabling legislation to enact many elements of the recovery plan. It had planned to start that process at a special legislative session in mid-August, but that meeting was cancelled.

July Property Sales

Bellevue Rd., 2101: First National Bank of Pa. to J. & E. Lewis, $100,000

Benton St., 509: C. Morrow to J. Washington & J. Barksdale, $89,900

Brookwood St., 2108: Trusted Source Capital LLC to Herlason LLC, $39,000

Chestnut St., 2223: T. & B. Johnson to T. Jeffers & C. & M. Bauer, $32,700

Edward St., 501: E. Marino to A. Telford, $123,000

Fulton St., 1732: LT65 Sunrise LP & C. Michael to PA Deals LLC, $46,500

Fulton St., 1732: PA Deals LLC to B. & M. Weaver, $62,500

Green St., 1328: D. Wong to D. Misner, $69,900

Hamilton St., 312: A. Clionsky to M. & E. Gillespie, $45,000

Hanna St., 103: T. Craig to S. Brown, $64,000

Holly St., 1940: D. Williams to H. Terry, $54,910

Hudson St., 1148: Bank of New York Mellon to PA Deals LLC, $38,600

Hummel St., 219: Bank of Landisburg to Brethren Housing Assoc., $90,000

Kelker St., 245: J. Stumpf to A. Peragine, $36,000

Logan St., 2331: T. Cunningham to M. Daniel, $39,713

Market St., 1604: J. Carchidi Jr. to James Goodfellow LLC, $38,000

N. 2^nd St., 1530: Clark Resources Inc. to MGRP Holdings Ltd., $225,000

N. 2^nd St., 2525: F. Vicknair to S. Barry, $193,500

N. 3^rd St., 1401, 1405, 1407, 1409, 1411; 300 & 302A Calder St.; 1405, 1410 & 1412 James St.: Third Street Development to Susquehanna Art Museum, $808,455

N. 4^th St., 2320A: Trusted Source Capital LLC to K. Lee & Y. Su, $36,000

N. 4^th St., 3310: E. Powden to B. Yonkin, $125,000

Parkside Lane, 2910: P. & C. DiMartile to W. & B. Hoover, $233,153

Penn St., 1314: Fannie Mae to E. Jones, $75,000

Pennwood Rd., 3135: PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund LLC to PA Deals LLC, $58,000

Race St., 608: D. & C. Smith to Shipoke LLC, $140,000

Rumson Dr., 2983: S. Carbaugh & M. Dutton to PI Capital LLC, $31,855

Sayford St., 121: M. & R. Plaut to G. Nebinger, $80,000

Showers St., 609: A. Beam to R. Leiphart, $137,500

S. 26^th St., 655: L. Kramer & T. Starr to Twenty Ninth Street United Methodist Church, $120,000

S. 27^th St., 655: G. & A. Havrilla to S. Sullivan, $59,900

S. Front St., 557: D. Yarkin & C. Carlson to K. Stennett, $125,000

Swatara St., 1323: E. Molina to J. Ortiz to D. Millar, $35,800

Waldo St., 2616: Gary Neff Inc. & City Limits Realty to J. Palmer, $32,900

Source: Dauphin County, for sales exceeding $30,000. Data is assumed to be accurate.

Party Time, Not Excellent.

August 16, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

When I was in graduate school, a journalism professor liked starting his class chatting about current events.

One morning, a student, commenting on a political issue, suggested that a presidential candidate wouldn’t take a particular position because “the party won’t like it.”

“Party?” shrieked the professor back at him. “Party? What the hell is this? The Soviet Union?”

Or, as he might have stated, Harrisburg, Pa.

Not one, but two, mayoral hopefuls learned that lesson the hard way yesterday, as independents Nevin Mindlin and Nate Curtis were tossed from the November ballot by Dauphin County Judge Bernard Coates Jr.

Both Mindlin and Curtis were challenged for not filling out a section of their nominating petitions. This mandatory section seemed to apply only to party candidates, not independents. So, they logically didn’t fill it out.

Even testimony by Mindlin that he tried to get clarification on the section but got bum advice from the county Bureau of Elections was not enough to sway Judge Coates to his side. Coates didn’t even rule on Curtis’ oversight, as his failure to meet a residency requirement tripped him up first.

So, two weeks ago, it seemed like one Democratic candidate would be facing two independents. Now, after several bizarre twists and turns, it’s one Democrat and one Republican, which, to the major parties, restores the political balance of nature—their wonderful world of mutual antagonism made whole again.

Unfortunately, what’s best for the parties is not what’s best for Harrisburg.

Until recently, it seemed like we’d have a fresh race with some new ideas and energy. Instead, we have a choice between the same two guys who ran in the Democratic primary just a few months ago. Only now, one’s a Republican.

Which brings me, once again, to the subject of Dan Miller.

In recent blog posts, I’ve said a number of critical things about Miller (an opinion solely my own, by the way). I wanted to clarify that I respect Miller’s years of public service and, in fact, very nearly voted for him in May.

But I just don’t understand the guy.

I don’t understand why he skipped debates; why he ran such a lackluster campaign; why, after his defeat, he blamed others, not himself, for his loss. I really don’t understand how he can continue to advocate a financial plan for Harrisburg that seems lost somewhere in 2009.

And now I don’t understand how this Democratic state committeeman can run for mayor as a Republican, having secured that nomination with all of 196 write-in votes. I’m sure he’ll do his best to hide his party affiliation during the campaign. However, being a Republican means certain things, things I’m pretty sure Miller does not believe in and cannot advocate. So then what we’re left with is political opportunism masked in a noble disguise of giving voters a choice—the same “choice” they just had three months ago.

What this portends for November is already taking shape.

Papenfuse, by his meek, non-response response to the petition challenges, has done damage to his campaign. How much is uncertain. I assume he hopes, once this ugly episode dies down, he can simply push forward and resume his quest for the mayoralty. Miller, naturally, will try to keep Papenfuse’s evasiveness alive as long as possible, trying to take maximum advantage of the public’s sudden turn against him.

I continue to believe that this race is Papenfuse’s to lose. The Democratic advantage in this city is very strong, and it’s hard to see, absent more serious stumbles by Papenfuse, where Miller’s support will come from beyond his primary followers. Given Miller’s anti-GOP positions, the conservative vote is hardly a lock for him, and he certainly won’t get much support from Mayor Linda Thompson’s crowd.

One near-certainty is that this will be a fascinating election campaign to watch. We have a Republican candidate who repudiates the Republican-led financial recovery plan for the city, while the Democrat embraces it. Is this the best thing for Harrisburg? Certainly not, but it’s the only choice the engrained two-party system has left us with.

Independents, Dazed

August 15, 2013 | by Paul Barker

On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of this week, Judge Bernard Coates, of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, heard testimony regarding three petitions to remove independent candidates from the ballot for the city’s November election.

This afternoon, Coates issued rulings granting all three. Two candidates for mayor, Nevin Mindlin and Nate Curtis, and one candidate for city controller, Jennifer Smallwood, were thus stricken from the ballot.

Pending any appeals, the mayoral race will now be a contest between Eric Papenfuse, winner of the Democratic primary in May, and Dan Miller, who accepted a write-in nomination for the Republican party after learning of the petitions last week. “It’s a civic responsibility for me to get on the ballot,” Miller said Friday, in a crafty public-relations coup outside the Bureau of Elections. “Let’s have a choice.”

Regardless of their consequences for the race this fall, Coates’ rulings have very little to offer in the way of clearing up confusion in the election code. With respect to the central questions facing independent candidates—which I discussed yesterday, with the naïve hope that judges would privilege the big picture over the fine print—Coates’ rulings were essentially a non-opinion.

His discussion of Mindlin’s case focused on two topics raised in the hearings. One was the nature of the errors made, and the other was whether they could be amended. (Coates’ ruling on Smallwood was the same, but shorter, because she called fewer witnesses. His ruling on Curtis upheld the petition on the grounds that Curtis failed to meet a residency requirement.)

The errors, by now well known to those following the story, concerned an empty section on the candidates’ nominating papers, set aside for designating a Committee to Fill Vacancies. Both Mindlin and Smallwood left the section blank, which is to say, they did not nominate any such committee. As their testimonies showed, they did so with the apparent approval of the county’s Bureau of Elections, whose job it is to help candidates fill out the forms correctly. (Gerald Feaser, the bureau’s director, testified his office does a “cursory review” and calls candidates to amend “obvious errors”; how Coates squared this with his claim in the rulings, that the candidates’ mistakes were “apparent on the face of the nominating papers,” is beyond me.)

They also apparently left the sections blank deliberately. Believing themselves not to be members of any political party, Mindlin and Smallwood intended to signal to supporters that they were running true independent campaigns. That is to say, a vote for Mindlin would be a vote for Mindlin, and not a vote for a political body that would replace him if he dropped out.

So wherein lies the error? Actually, the term in the suits and in the decisions is not “error,” but “defect,” which shaves off an element of culpability and focuses instead on the surface of things. This may appear forgiving towards the candidates, but in fact it obscures the issue. The candidates had very good reasons for leaving the section blank, pertaining to the sort of campaigns they believed they were running. The legal language, however, does away with all that. The defects are simply there on the page, where they can glare in photocopy after photocopy. Coates agreed with the petitioners that the committee requirement was not a “mere technicality,” and that the absence of one constituted a “fatal defect,” invalidating the candidacies.

The rest of the discussion centered on whether the papers could be amended. This was more or less hopeless from the start, since the signatures had already been gathered. What’s peculiar is that the candidates pursued this possibility. They left the committee section blank in the first place because, as they testified, they didn’t believe they should have one—again, a nominating committee seems like the province of political parties, which the candidates, as independents, eschewed.

A charitable interpretation is that they wanted to indicate that the defect in the papers, if it was a defect, was an honest mistake, and they would make a good faith effort to correct it. It’s interesting to speculate over what the outcome might have been had they stuck more firmly to their aspirations for independence. As it happened, Coates ruled that amendment was impossible.

Coates’ rulings may not be the final word; the Mindlin campaign issued a release shortly after the decision, which stated that Mindlin will “stay in the fight” and may appeal. If the rulings stand, however, what guidance do they give to future independent campaigns?

A revealing document on this question is one that appeared outside of the actual hearings. On Tuesday, Golberg Katzman, the attorneys representing the petition against Mindlin, submitted a memorandum of law to Coates. The memorandum takes issue with the prior cases cited by Herschel Lock, Mindlin’s attorney, and ably dismembers their relevance to the case. But then it adds a peculiar coda: that regarding Mindlin’s candidacy,

nothing prevents him from running as a write-in candidate and he is, thus, not deprived of his opportunity to seek election for the office of Mayor of Harrisburg, nor are his voters deprived of the opportunity to vote for him. In this way, Mr. Mindlin, in fact, can achieve his goal of running as an American citizen unaffiliated with any political party, political group, or political body.

The optimism here can’t possibly be sincere. The difference made by being on the ballot is obviously profound. If Katzman is right, the only practical means to a serious candidacy is membership in one political party or another. This is precisely the notion that independents find corrosive, and it’s a notion that, per Coates’ rulings, remains embedded in the election code.

The favorable way of reading the decisions is to note that they strictly uphold the rule of law, insisting that candidates follow nominating procedures exactly as prescribed. The great irony is that, in part as a consequence of the decisions, the typical nomination process has been flipped on its head. Miller, who followed the major party nomination procedure correctly—and lost, in the Democratic primary—is now on the ballot. The candidates who sought to run as independents, meanwhile, were essentially told to form a party. Apparently they were more independent than the law could tolerate, and as a result, they’re out.

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like