Street, Katz face off in first of mayoral debates

In what may have been the first opportunity for substantive discussion of the issues facing the city of Philadelphia, Mayor John Street and his Republican challenger Sam Katz faced off yesterday in an hour-long debate at the Mandell Theater at Drexel University.

Unfortunately, the event, sponsored by four minority journalist associations and aired without interruption on CN8, was defined not by the content of the characters, but by the format of the debate.

Street focused his remarks on what he has accomplished during the course of his 25 years in public service, while Katz focused on the time to come.

"Four years ago, I was optimistic," Katz said. "Philadelphia has lost its momentum."

"I've seen a remarkable transition take place over the last three years," Street said.

"I believe this city is on a roll," he later added.

However, because of the way the event was structured, there was little direct debate.

It had "lousy rules," said Mark Hughes, a senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program. "The big takeaway from this debate was that it was an inappropriate format for both this campaign as it shaped up, and these two candidates."

The debate was a question-and-answer format, in which one journalist from each of the associations -- the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists, the Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association -- asked one of the candidates a question.

Topics addressed ranged from campaign tactics and strategies to issues such as cutting the wage tax and improving housing initiatives. Both were questioned about how they would address minority concerns, including health care and business policies.

Each candidate had one minute to answer the question, at which point a buzzer sounded in the studio. The journalist then had the opportunity to ask a follow-up question, which the candidate had 30 seconds to answer.

Following that, with a few notable exceptions, the debate switched gears entirely, and the next journalist in line asked a totally different question -- generally, though not always, relating to the interests of the minority group which he or she represented.

By "letting the panelists follow up their own question, you never got any direct cross-examination," Political Science Professor Jack Nagel said. "Rarely did you have the two of them answering the same question in the same sequence."

By all accounts, however, the candidates did well in the given format.

"I thought it was serious, substantive and positive for the most part," Nagel said.

The candidates even joked together about the format. Several times Street stopped his responses in mid-stream at the sound of the bell, drawing laughter from the studio audience. Street later moved for a rule change, which Katz quickly seconded.

On a question regarding how Street would act to support domestic partnership policies in businesses, he was very forthright in his response. He stated that as a city councilman he voted against a bill that would give health benefits to the domestic partners of city employees. The legislation, that passed the council without Street's support, is now tied up in legal challenges.

"I thought absolutely [Street] was at his best when he was making reference to the domestic partnerships legislation," Hughes said. "He unpacked a legislative and legal history, that, without explaining why he was against it, implicitly explained why he voted against it."

By the same token, Katz performed well on a question about what he has done to support minority businesses over the course of his private-sector career, which he responded to with specific instances where he and his company had done just that.

"What I was impressed with was his ability to recall and name the names of the firms," Hughes said. "It struck me as something more than a superficial list of activities, it was a very substantial recollection."

By far, however, the question hanging over the whole event regarded the controversy surrounding the listening device recently found in Street's City Hall office -- a question that wasn't significantly addressed until the end.

It was "the 800-pound gorilla that was not visible until the end," Nagel said.

In the last round of questions, the campaigns did have a chance to address the issue, but, again, were limited to a one-minute response.

Street led off by appealing to the suspicion that he had previously addressed, that it could be a Republican strategy to discredit him, while Katz continued his call for full disclosure of the issue to be made by all parties with information.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.