What we need, and don't need, in the city's next mayor

Jan. 7, 2007
Tom Ferrick Jr.
Inquirer columnist

People vote their party. People vote their prejudices. Some people, if you can believe it, even base their vote on the issues.

But this year in Philadelphia, in this mayor's race, the factor that could trump all of the above is that elusive quality known as leadership.

People are hungry for a strong political leader, not only someone who runs the government, but also who embodies the hopes and aspirations of the city and its people.

Political leadership is more than the sum of native intelligence and life experience. It is very much about temperament and personality.

I'll mention two names to make my point: Ed Rendell and John Street.

Of the two, who do you think is the smartest? I would call it a tie. Rendell is better at big picture. Street is better at detail. But the two men, in my experience, have always evidenced a sure grasp of the issues. Both are wise about the intricacies of politics.

Now, who do you think is the better leader? My vote is for Rendell - hands down.

When John Street ran for mayor in 1999, he was the most qualified candidate, with his gold-plated résumé as a member and later president of City Council. He was effective in leading Council, but his "constituents" were the 16 other council members.

The doubts about Street were mostly about his personality. He had a reputation of being prickly, secretive and difficult.

Could he rise to the occasion and become an effective public leader? After seven years of John Street we know the answer.

To give the mayor his due, in his second term he's been much more accessible to the media and he's upped his quota of public appearances. But The Bug Scandal has defined his second term, undercutting his efforts at exerting himself as a public leader.

Theodore Roosevelt said the presidency is like the jobs of king and prime minister rolled into one. You formulate policy. You head the bureaucracy. But you also fulfill the symbolic role as head of state. You run the government, you lead the nation.

Ditto for mayor.

As part of the paper's Great Expectations project, which focuses on issues facing the new mayor, I've attended a dozen sessions where various public and private civic leaders have talked about their hopes and fears for the city and its future.

You could easily guess the "cons" that made most lists: the public schools, the tax structure, transportation, job and population loss.

The surprise to me was how much talk there was about the need for the next mayor to be an effective public leader - even a regional leader.

One participant said that the next mayor needed a high emotional IQ. Another said she didn't want a mayor who was a "loner. "

These remarks got me thinking about some of the important qualities to look for in our crop of mayoral candidates. I've reduced them to a series of questions:

Is he a loner? We need someone who wants to be inclusive and respects the opinion even of his enemies - because you never know when they can become allies around a specific cause.

Is he a hard worker? He must be willing to give all to the city. We don't want someone who wants the job just because it is the top rung on the ladder. We need someone who is willing to be king and prime minister.

Is he a coalition builder? The city doesn't have enough political clout to go it alone. They next mayor needs to be an expert at reaching out, especially beyond the city's borders.

Is he a unifier? He must appeal to the city's polyglot mix of racial and ethnic groups. Not easy, but it will be poison if the next mayor is seen as favoring one group over another.

Is he willing to lead? The city doesn't need a chief facilitator, who sees his job simply as bringing people to the table. We need someone with a clear vision and a set of priorities, who is willing to take political risks to enact them.

Is he a communicator? We need someone who can get his message across. The next mayor has to be an effective salesman for the city and its people.

Is he willing to challenge conventional wisdom? We need someone who will do what is right and necessary, regardless of the orthodoxies and the special interests.

Finally, is he a man of integrity? As important, will he surround himself with people of integrity?

At the Great Expectations forums, there was a feeling that none of the candidates quite fit the bill when it came to these traits.

Then again, very few of these leaders' counterparts in 1990 would have predicted Ed Rendell would turn into such a success.

As they say in football, that's why they play the game: to see what happens. Sometimes it surprises you.

Myself, I'm hoping for a surprise.