Murphy’s not great, but let’s not terminate

Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy’s approval ratings have nose-dived, largely because of the… Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy’s approval ratings have nose-dived, largely because of the city’s fiscal crisis, according to a Pennsylvania Poll of registered Allegheny County voters.

This begs the question: Will Pittsburgh be caught up in recall madness, the latest fad to drift in from California?

While no one has suggested that Pittsburgh elect Gary Coleman mayor – yet – it is clear that voters’ dissatisfaction with Murphy will affect his third term.

But, despite the numbers, there should be no California-style, ejection-seat politics.

Seventy-four percent of city voters said that Murphy does not deserve to be re-elected, as did 64 percent of suburban ones. Still, a poll is not a no-confidence vote, which, under parliamentary systems, can dissolve the ruling party’s government.

Though a recall is as close to a no-confidence vote as U.S. democracy provides, it is not one. California’s potential recall of Governor Gray Davis is estimated to cost the state $30 million. Clearly, if Pittsburgh is cutting basic services like public transportation, it doesn’t have that kind of disposable funds – for that matter, neither does California.

Moreover, Murphy has not been accused of the malfeasance that would necessitate a recall. Sure, the Pittsburgh budget is creeping further into a deficit chasm. So is nearly every other city’s and state’s. After seven fat years, the city must prepare for the lean ones, such as this. Certainly, succumbing to a national – and international – trend is not grounds on which a mayor can be thrown from office.

That said, Murphy’s performance has not been admirable. He has earned his approval rating or, rather, lack thereof. But that is not on par with gross neglect or criminal activity – valid reasons for a recall. It should be noted that Davis is not accused of these, either.

Popularity oscillates. Murphy was elected by a landslide – after beating his opponent in the primary by a hair. Two years ago, Pittsburgh voters wanted him in office. Times, of course, have changed. Given this variation, it is not prudent to try to abort a politician’s term because his popularity has dropped.

Instead of flushing Murphy, Pittsburgh voters should concentrate on drafting a new person to head this city, and then elect him or her when Murphy’s term has ended. To do otherwise would be a waste of time and money, and give the California circus a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve.