Right Angle Club (RAC) Monthly Member Newsletter
for
September, 2021
Zoom Speakers & their Presentation Topics
September 10: Ryan Fluer who will address how the Orchestra pivoted operations in the pandemic, how the Orchestra is executing strategies on inclusion, diversity, equity, access (IDEAS), and what its new partnership with the Kimmel Center means. Ryan will also preview the 2021-2022 program which will be made public on Thursday, September 9th.
September 17: Glenn Bergman is the other speaker Glenn will talk about his experiences of bringing decades of food industry business experience to making Weaver’s Way Food Coop a competitor for the grocery chains and expanding the scope and impact of Philabunance.
September 24: No speaker. The club will conduct a planning meeting instead.
Previous Month’s Speakers’ Presentations Summarized
(prepared by Bob Haskell)
August 6, 2021. Sean Connelly, Executive Director of the Arch Street Meeting House Preservation Trust (ASMHPT), discussed 1) the history of the Arch Street Meeting House and its place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and US history, 2) the operating model of the Preservation Trust, and 3) how this National Historic Landmark has weathered and expanded its reach during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Meeting House is located at 4th and Arch Streets. The land was formally deeded as a burial ground by William Penn in 1701, which at that point was on the outskirts of the city. The first recorded burial was Mary Lloyd in 1682, and the last was in 1880. It was not just for Quakers. During the yellow fever epidemic in 1793, which killed 10% of the city population, the burial ground was pushed to its limits, going from 150 burials per year to over 600 in three months. To help limit body dumping, the wall was raised to 9 feet. Overall, there are over 20,000 burials, but no burial markers. Bodies are buried in layers, which is why the grounds are higher than the street. In 1794, the women’s business meeting decided they needed a larger meeting house (women were powerful because they managed the finances). The Arch Street Meeting House was designed in 1803-04 by Quaker master builder Owen Biddle Jr. It was built to be the Mother Church and a place for the Monthly Meeting. Meetinghouses carry the Quaker ideals of simplicity, plainness, and equality; the Arch Street Meeting House is no exception. It is an example of Georgian architectural style, but with utilitarian design and minimal detail or ornamentation, which blends into the environment by using local materials and construction practices. The Quakers split in the mid 19th century into Orthodox and Hicksite factions, and the meetinghouse shifted from being inactive in politics to being a meeting place for suffragists (e.g., Lucrecia Mott worshipped at the church). They reunified mid 20th century but remained politically active: supported Civil Rights, Black Power, and LGBTQ movements; provided housing during the Revolutionary Peoples Constitutional Convention in 1970; hosted House of Umoja peace conference to confront gang violence and police brutality in 1972; welcomed Occupy Philadelphia protesters in 2020. The Meeting House was also given to the Yearly Meeting. In 2011, it was designated a National Historical Landmark and the Arch Street Meeting Preservation Trust was established to operate the building as a museum, preserve the building and grounds, and provide educational programs about Quaker history. There are now three separate organizations: Yearly Meeting ($400K operating income/expense and $100K capital expense), Monthly Meeting ($34K maintenance expense), and the Preservation Trust ($100K operating expense). They are also modernizing the organization (e.g. hired an executive director, upgraded major systems, created 30 year capital improvement plan, created master space plan, established collection management policy, created exhibit and event space). The Trust receives 50% of its operating funding from institutional, State, and local funding. The impacts from Covid 19 include loss of rentals, field trips, and visitors (30,000 in 2019 down to 1,300 in 2020); loss of $150,000 in revenue; and a shift to virtual programs, which has been challenging. Federal funding has helped stabilize the organization, and there was a successful campaign to fund and implememt outdoor exhibits. So far this year, there have been 10,000+ visitors, and rentals have picked up. The future will see subsidized field trips for Philadelphia public schools and new exhibits, both of which will be supported by PA’s Education Improvement Tax Credit program. Also, more Federal, State, and local funding will support expanded programs, preservation, education, and major system upgrades. There were 15 lunch and two Zoom participants.
August 13, 2021. Carol Kuniholm, Chair and co-founder of Fair Districts PA, a grassroots coalition founded in 2016 by the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, provided an update on the redistricting timeline, prospects for fair maps for the coming decade, and what might come next in the story of judicial gerrymandering. First, three definitions were provided. 1) Reapportionment, which refers to the periodic reallotment of US congressional seats every 10 years according to US census results. PA seats have been trending downward (21 to 19 to 18, and now 17 in 2021). 2) Redistricting, which is the act of rearranging US Congressional and state legislative (senate and house) electoral districts. Districts are required to be even by population. 3) Gerrymandering, which is the manipulation of these electoral districts for political advantage. The practice is named after Eldridge Gerry, who signed off on a partisan district in Boston in 1812 shaped like a mythological salamander. A 1967 PA Constitution change established a five-member, bipartisan Legislative Reapportionment Commission to draw legislative districts. Four legislative leaders (majority and minority leader in each chamber) form this Commission. No other major democracy allows an elected official a role in drawing their own district lines. Maps matter! Gerrymandering has been a growing problem in PA for decades. Litigation in 2017-2018 by the League of Women Voters resulted in new maps being drawn in 2018, which are now much more rational. But PA still has some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country, creating an entrenched advantage for Republicans through a discrepancy between votes cast and seats won (e.g., in 2018, 54% Democratic votes cast versus 45% Democratic House seats). Legislative leaders have so far resisted efforts to address this issue. Polls indicate that Pennsylvania voters want fair districts, but reform is currently not possible in PA. Citizens can’t bring referendums to the ballot, leaders won’t relinquish party advantage and incumbent protection, and the public won’t pay sufficient attention. But Fair Districts PA is paying attention with an army of 60,000 volunteers. The legislative process is the problem. Majority party leaders control the congressional committees, and consequently, any bills they do not support do not get voted out of committees (e.g., equitable school funding, unfunded state pension obligations, infrastructure projects, broadband enhancements for rural communities, lead exposure in schools and rental properties, OSHA protections, minimum wage increase). More than 75% of bills introduced never get out of committee; less than 7% ever get a final vote. PA has an agenda fairness score of zero, meaning that there are no PA legislature policies in place to ensure that bills with strong bipartisan support will get a vote. In the 2019-2020 legislative session, those same leaders pushed through an amendment to the PA Constitution to create judicial districts for appellate court elections, instead of the current merit-based selection process. This would potentially undermine the independence of PA courts and enable a new form of gerrymandering. This bill was done without public hearings, without expert judicial testimony, and without cross-partisan support. It was voted out of committee after only nine-minutes of discussion. Fairness PA was paying attention and their actions caused the bill to be tabled (for now). It hoped that we shift to a more accountable and responsive process with less corruption. LACRA (Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Act) has been introduced, which requires transparency, public engagement, and map-drawing criteria. But so far it is only a bill in committee. What’s next for redistricting? New district maps will be passed soon as a bill by the state legislature and signed (or vetoed) by the governor. The next few months will shape PA maps, politics, and policy for the next decade and beyond. There will be public hearings this fall, and a website for collecting comments. It is hoped that the public will pay attention and actively comment. There were 20 lunch and five Zoom participants.
August 20, 2021. Professor Richardson Dilworth, Head, the Politics Department and Director of the Center for Public Policy at Drexel University, discussed his upcoming book entitled, “Reforming Philadelphia, 1682-2021.” The book is designed to provide a comprehensive, but short, political history of the city, organized around the concept of “reform cycles,” or moments when new ideas regarding the purpose and functions of a city of inspired “reformers” try to take control of and change city government. It is part of a larger series of short books (approximately 100 pages each) called “Political Lessons from American Cities”. Each book will cover one major American city and an important lesson that it has to offer to the study and practice of American politics. Examples include Austin, San Francisco, Twin Cities, New York City, and Philadelphia. In this book, the challenge was to provide a comprehensive review of 340 years of Philadelphia politics in 100+ pages. The intent is to provide a conceptual and historical hook for political development and an expanded system of reform. There are reform cycles, which have similarities across time, but they are not otherwise cyclical (i.e., not with repeating patterns). They are instigated by interlocking professional and social networks that generate constant pressure to reinvent and reform, always looking for opportunities to breakthrough. There has been/is constant political churn about what the City should be, compared to what the City has been/is actually doing. The emphasis in the book is on primary periods of political reform: 1840s-1850s, 1870s-1880s, 1887 Bullit Charter, 1905-1911, 1950s, contemporary to now. For the 1790s and early 1840s, Philadelphia was known as the Athens of America. But this started to decline in the 1840s. But economic vibrancy did not. During the 1840s to 1880s, there was a vibrant and powerful Board of Trade, which was a large scale, general business association. In 1880, Philadelphia was the second largest City in the British Empire, second only to London. Medical and textiles were big. Many small producers established a resilient, diversified economic portfolio. Philadelphia’s mayors up to the 1840s tended to be drawn from the upper ranks of society. They had relatively weak powers, with little of the patronage needed to cultivate political alliances. This changed in the 1850s. Two events reshaped City government and made Philadelphia what it is today. First, the Progressives (Democrats) prevailed against the Quaker Whigs and the Hunkers (believers in the status quo) for the City to subscribe to major railroad bonds. Second, the Consolidation Act of 1854 merged the two square mile city with the municipal borders coterminous with Philadelphia County and the surrounding manufacturing areas. This established the ward system (64 originally) and a patronage base, forming the basis for the strong Republican “machine”. However, the Board of Trade, which had become the Committee of 100 (civically engaged manufacturers, lawyers, bankers, etc), endorsed Samuel King in the mayoral election of 1881. It would be the last time a Democrat would be elected until 1951. In 1887, the Bullit Bill created a new city charter, giving the mayor the power to appoint not just a chief of police but also the head of a department of public works, reducing the number of elected jobs. There has been a toggling between organization-driven and reform-driven politics in the 20th century. Republican party bosses dominated the scene in the early 1900s, wielding the most influence on Philadelphia residents. These included Israel Durham, who consolidated power from the ward leaders, the Vare brothers, and Bois Penrose. In 1911, Blankenberg was elected as a reformer. He sought to supplant patronage with merit as the basis for city appointments, and to expand city services while cutting costs. But no reform party managed to capture the mayoralty for long, and except when the regular Republican Party was divided. Recently, Mayor Nutter had a reform movement similar to Blackenberg. Today, conjoint movements of Philadelphia 3.0 (political organization committed to helping Philadelphia capitalize on its progress and promise) and Reclaim Philadelphia (about reclaiming and restoring political power back to people since 2016) are pushing reforms. Reclaim Philadelphia endorses and supports progressive candidates and policies that fight for a vision of putting working people before the profits of corporations and the super-rich. Overall, there are two general points to be made. 1) Reform periods were effective when being driven by grass roots movements, social ostracizing, and the mainstream press. In general, they were not driven by corruption issues, and were accomplished with no federal prosecutions. 2) Reform movements today are hampered by a fragmented press. Except for Philadelphia Weekly, all news organizations are run by non-profits. There were 21 lunch and four Zoom participants.
Carter Broach
Corresponding Secretary
broach@udel.edu
