May 13–20, 1999

primary '99

Happy Trails

Former City Councilwoman Happy Fernandez has a vision. But does she have the chops to be mayor?

by Frank Lewis

Jaywalking. Fairly or unfairly, for better or for worse, Happy Fernandez will always be the Council member who made an issue of jaywalking.

That's not meant to sound dismissive. Fernandez may not have been the only elected official to know that Philadelphia had been averaging about 60 pedestrian deaths per year, but she certainly was the only one who cared enough to try to do something about it. She risked her credibility (the jaywalking crackdown she helped launch was roundly ridiculed) to champion an issue that offered virtually no political payoff.

But that's what Happy Fernandez does. The causes for which she chooses to fight may not be grand in scale, nor topics of discussion in the corridors of power, but they matter to many of the people who call the city home. From founding the Parents Union for Public Schools in the early 1970s, to battling graffiti—and yes, jaywalking—in City Council in the 1990s, Fernandez has spent her entire adult life working on issues that impact directly and daily on everyone, but most especially on the poor and middle class.

As one City Paper staffer put it after a meeting with Fernandez, "She's a real person."

The question, however, is whether Philadelphia wants—or needs—a "real person" as its mayor.

Perhaps the most educated candidate ever to run for mayor of Philadelphia (she holds two master's degrees—one in teaching from Harvard, the other in American history from Penn—and a doctorate, in urban education, from Temple), Fernandez is well-versed in the issues, and her positions are well thought-out. It's her judgment that at times seems less than sound.

Chief executives—presidents, governors, mayors—delegate. We choose them according to how well their values reflect our own, but what we're really doing is trusting them to restructure the government in such a way as to make it work to our liking. They do this by appointing people who meet their standards to positions of lesser scope—police commissioner, superintendent of schools, deputy mayor for economic development, etc.

So mayors, ideally, are big-picture people with enough management skill to select the right people (for the right reasons) and to let them do their jobs. This is where some of Fernandez's proposals begins to raise questions.

Example: First on her list of priorities for crime prevention is "increas[ing] the use of bike patrols and foot patrols which have been shown to be a cost-effective crime deterrent." A good idea, without question—but a top priority? By contrast, Fernandez lists "ridding neighborhoods of drug dealers" fourth.

Fernandez sounds much more mayoral when talking about an issue she does know well: education. She has committed, like other candidates, to fighting for the ability to appoint all School Board members at once (they currently serve staggered terms), as well as the superintendent. Unlike her opponents, however, she has committed to staying the course with Superintendent David Hornbeck's Children Achieving agenda. She notes, correctly, that test scores have risen slightly since the program was implemented, and argues that pulling the plug now would be counterproductive. She also wants to build on Hornbeck's success by expanding the use of summer school, reducing class size and dramatically increasing the number of after-school programs (the latter offers the potential for double payoff by reducing juvenile crime). But while each of these would no doubt benefit many kids, they'll cost millions, and the School District already is struggling to close budget gaps.

The answer? More money from the state, Fernandez says. But Philadelphia leaders have fought that battle for years, with little success, and Fernandez has not adequately explained how she will succeed where so many others have failed. "That's a tough issue," she concedes. "I think a lot of it's going to have to be good political skills and negotiation."

The term "political skills" calls to mind what probably was the defining moment of her campaign—the decision to force a court to decide whether Marty Weinberg's recent purchase of a home in the suburbs made him ineligible to be mayor on the grounds that he didn't meet the City Charter's residency requirement.

You could argue that it was a gutsy move. Dwight Evans, John Street and John White Jr. all declined to get involved, but all undoubtedly wanted her to succeed. But was it a smart move?

In all the months that the question of Weinberg's residency had hung in the air, no one—neither reporters nor political opponents—unearthed incontrovertible evidence that the Penn Valley home had been his primary residence. And yet Fernandez charged ahead, taking the matter to court on the assumption that she'd be able to obtain such evidence through discovery.

But you can't get to the discovery phase on the argument that given the opportunity, you'll find something to support your claims. The judge had no choice but to dismiss the case. And the result was that Weinberg emerged stronger than before (the revelation that representatives from his opponents' camps had met to discuss such a challenge only galvanized his support), and Fernandez looked foolish. Not to mention a little overwhelmed by the intense media interest, and the speed with which she was unceremoniously sent packing.

What did Happy hope to accomplish? Was this a wise, mayoral stratagem?

Technically, yes, a brief suburban residency would make Weinberg ineligible to be mayor. But would it matter? Would it say anything worthwhile about his ability to be an effective mayor? No more than Weinberg's attack ads—which Fernandez has criticized—say anything worthwhile about John Street.

She took a shot and lost. In a campaign, that's one thing -she only hurt herself. But a mayor must choose his or her battles with great care, because the stakes are much higher.

And so if Fernandez's political skills prove insufficient to persuade the state to appropriate more money for Philadelphia's schools, where does that leave us? Presumably her plans for additional services are put on hold or canceled; she's been adamant about proceeding as cautiously with new spending and tax cuts as Mayor Ed Rendell has.

There is a lot to like about Happy Fernandez. She is smart and forward-thinking. She is unlikely to favor a politically expedient quick fix over a viable long-term solution. She eagerly champions causes that are far more important than their low political sexiness quotient suggests.

But she is also comparatively new to hardball politics and it shows.