Brady wins again

567CD07_4-13-07.pdf

Looks like Bob Brady stays on the ballot. (Check out the decision for yourself, above).

A decision from Judge Dan Pellegrini affirms the decision of Common Pleas Court Judge Patrick J. Toole to keep Bob Brady on the ballot.

Barring an appeal to the Supreme Court (which may not even happen) voters will get a chance to vote for Bob Brady on May 15.

As to the biggest contention of the appeal — that Brady's erred by not reporting the money paid into a pension for him by the local carpenters' union — the appeals court ruled that the instructions on the financial disclosure form are different than what is contained in the Ethics Act.

The court ruled that the FIS instructions "do not include the language 'thing of value received.' They only require the candidate to list sources of income greater than $1,300, including any payment, fee, salary, expense, allowance, forbearance, forgiveness, interest, dividend, royalty, rental income, capital gain, reward, severance payment, prize winning and tax exempt income. Because Candidate did not receive any payment of those types of income — only an increase in years of service to the pension fund — he did not receive any of the listed items that the Ethics Commission directed that a candiate had to report in Box 10 of the FIS. Because a candidate may reasonably rely on the instructions given to him on what is reportable income, it is neither a fatal defect to the petition nor a violation of the Ethics Act when a candidate fills out the form in accordance with those instructions."

The decision also takes a broad look at the increasing number of challenges to financial disclosure forms.

"Either we should go back to the view enunciated In re Nomination Petition of Anastasio that all defects are fatal or we should allow, as suggested by the trial court, liberal amendment of the FIS. Either way, candidates will then be treated the same and the outcome will not be dependent on the unique factual circumstances of each case that requires judges to find whether a candidate's failure to dislose crosses some unknown line."

Comments

[Jack]

Having lost twice in Court, perhaps now Knox and Evans can end this case and let the Democratic voters -- instead of judges -- decide who will be the next Mayor of Philadelphia.

Let the decision stand.

[dude]

"unique factual circumstances" == "party chair" vs. "not party chair"?

[Patricio]

Jack, wouldn't it be wonderful if all voters were able to decide the next mayor of Philadelphia.

Instead of just the Democratic ones.

[EastChestnut]

Glad Brady won.

This splits the idiot vote nicely between Fattah and Brady.

God, if some of those Brady votes wound up boosting Fattah had Brady left the race, there would be no chance for the only candidates left who have working synapses (Evans, Nutter, Knox) to have a chance at making a real race based on their progressive policy statements.

Here's ^5 to Brady helping us out.

[Jack]

Patricio,

In short: no. The fact is that most people in this city are Democrats and the Democratic Party has a right to choose its nominee. For this cycle, it means that the Democratic Party gets to choose the next mayor. Perhaps if the Republicans had a candidate with crossover support or a Dem ran as an independent then there would be a real race in November.

But John Street isn't running again (just ask Mike Nutter), Al Taubenberger is not Sam Katz, and the Democratic voters of Philadelphia will, for all intents and purposes, choose the next mayor.

As a Democrat, I'm fine with that system.