Which is clearly says in the link.

Mr. Mavigliio,

Not everyone clicks the link in an article. Why not simply include the information with your articles?

You're wrong on everything you say here.

First, the City Attorney said no such thing. It was the City Clerk who suggested the cost would be about $500,000 in a special election. The Mayor said he did not want it on the special election. It would be on the ballot in the June 2010 statewide election. Costs are absolutely minimal.

The number of signatures was a record for a short amount of time, and the requirement to put it on the ballot.

Why are you so afraid of having a debate about it and letting fellow voters decide?

And, again, you are wrong about the stimulus package. Mayor Johnson went to the White House several times, actively worked with Congresswoman Matsui on the stimulus money, and pushed for the stimulus money.

To clarify then, Mr. Maviglio does not believe we're better served by Mr. Johnson putting his own shameless ambition aside. And running a city is not difficult - I guess not if the City Manager is your new BFF. By implication that my statement re; the budget is incorrect, Mr. Maviglio does not know how to read a public budget schedule. - "Schedule" in the context of a public budget is a detailed table outlining costs & funding streams. The size of our city necessitates several schedules including a detailed personnel schedule by department. The personnel schedules in the FY (that means Fiscal Year) 09-10 budget clearly shows a huge loss in the number of funded positions for Sac PD when compared to the personnel schedule for FY 07-08. The cost estimate for piggybacking an election is in the public record and was discussed at council in a public meeting. The city attorney did not dispute the cost figure. Even if this figure is wrong - Mr. Maviglio fails to provide facts on how much it will cost. Mr. Maviglio's deliberate ignorance for the purpose of shameless self-promotion reflects badly on his boss and speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the people we're dealing with on this issue.

With all due respect and without the personal character attack, you have no idea what you are talking about. The cost of adding a question on the ballot -- particularly if the commission also adds one -- is next to nothing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. The election is being held anyway, the ballots are being printed anyway, and there are city council races that will be on the June 2010 ballot. The costs are only expensive when it's a special election. And had you done the research, you would note that Mayor Johnson specifically said he did NOT want this to be on a special election ballot and prefers the June 2010 ballot.

It is fully disclosed in the link.

Including the information on a separate Web page, rather than part of the story, is "security through obscurity": one can claim that the information was posted to the public, just in a non-obvious place where people are unlikely to look: the link provided gives no indication what it is about on THIS Web page, which is where Steve should be disclosing his role as campaign manager.

No problem with that. But to suggest I was hiding it is incorrect. It's there. You just have to take the time to fully read the post.

No. One has to take the time from THIS article on this page and click the link to another page and THEN "take the time to fully read the post...." especially because your identification as the mayor's spokesman is buried in the text and hard to spot.

William didn't say you "were hiding it;" he said your tactic "is "security through obscurity": one can claim that the information was posted to the public, just in a non-obvious place where people are unlikely to look." That's true.

Continuing to defend your buried identification and not acknowledging the two options for identifying your role offered by the SacPress editor-in-chief, is as self defeating as beginning a reply "With all due respect" followed by the shot "You don't have to be a rocket scientist...."

How can anyone believe this mayor's claims of "accountability" if his spokesman won't even provide a MINIMAL level of transparency -- or courtesy -- on SacPress?

This site does not screen articles before they are posted. Anyone may post any article they like, so long as it follows our terms of service. In this case I am disappointed that Mr. Maviglio has not identified his role in the Johnson campaign / administration, however I am pleased that the community has so quickly identified this fact.

In terms of presenting differing opinions I highly suggest that if you have a differing opinion, you write another opinion piece or news article representing a different viewpoint. We appreciate a wide variety of viewpoints on any issue and show that appreciation by promoting articles of different points of view to our front page.

If you search for "Strong Mayor" on our site you will find a wide variety of articles already written on the subject representing many different perspectives and aspects of this story.

If you have more questions comments or concerns you may contact me directly by emailing geoff@sacramentopress.com. I also would encourage you to come check out our office and meet our staff.

Thank you for your many contributions to our site.

My role is clearly identified in the article link. Had the commenters actually read the story and the link instead of a knee-jerk attack, they sould have seen that.

This wasn't an opinion article. It presented the news of the signature verification and the possible next step. I'd be interested in what your perspective of bias is in the article. I clearly have an opinion on it, but this article was meant to provide insight on the process, not promote it.

I apologize for my lack of clarity above. I meant to indicate that Mr. Meade should write another opinion piece as he had written one previously.

As for full disclosure it is convention on our site to disclose your relationship to the issue you are writing about either in each article or your profile's "about me" section. That greater level of transparency will help preemptively address many of the commenters' concerns.

I value your writing and this article and thank you for your contribution.

Nearly everything written is slanted by opinion.

Thanks Geoff. I've updated the profile.

Perhaps I simplified the approval of the petitions for understanding rather than spell out the data analysis, but the end result is still the same: the initiative will be on the ballot because enough Sacramento voters demanded that it will be.

I look forward to the results of the Charter Commission. But let's look at what we are dealing with: a board of political appointees that fails to reflect the diversity of our City, is chaired by a former city manager who has an inherent bias against the "strong mayor/council" form of government just about every large California city has, and only was set up because of the Mayor's initiative. Its work is being advised by the City Attorney, who has an inherent conflict of interest in the issue. And the majority were appointed by City Council members who opposed Mayor Johnson in the last election.

I'm not quite sure why opponents to the strong mayor/council measure are so fearful of having it even placed on the ballot unless they think that the 58 percent of the voters who elected Mayor Johnson might actually also want him to have similar levels of authority that just about every other Mayor of large cities in our state do. Let's let the people decide.

"Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson gathered enough signatures to qualify his strong-mayor proposal for the ballot – but just barely."

Mr. Maviglio,

Perhaps you oversimplified the approval of the petitions "for understanding" that "More than 50,000 qualified signatures of Sacramento voters were verified by election officials,"rather than spell out" the actual count -- an estimated (based on 3% sample) 35,676 valid signatures.

"The end result is still the same: the initiative will be on the ballot because enough" paid petition gatherers used aggressive tactics and buzzwords to earn their pay. Sacramentans stories about being accosted by Johnson's petition gatherers and/or ignored if they had substantive questions, do not give your suggestion of a mandate any more credibility.

In Larry Meade's previous article and comments, linked here
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/8804/Mayor_Johnson_Seeks_More_Power
you were the one demanding that claims about individuals be substantiated.

You wrote: "The "guilt by association" here in this faux "article" is a thinly-veiled attempt at personal character assassination."

Are you prepared to back up, with solid info, "thinly-veiled attempts at personal character assassination" in your description of the City Charter Commission, "Let's look at what we're dealing with:"?

Maybe start with "a board of political appointees that fails to reflect the diversity of our City." Are we supposed to accept your insults toward the process and the participants without question? Is your campaign portraying the charter process that way to those voters who DO ask questions beyond the sloganeering?

Since we have a City Council that does reflect the diversity of our city, they may find it as insulting as some citizens do, that you would use racial innuendo amongst the other "thinly veiled" insults.

"I'm not quite sure why opponents to the strong mayor/council measure are so fearful of having it even placed on the ballot unless they think that the 58 percent of the voters who elected Mayor Johnson might actually also want him to have similar levels of authority that just about every other Mayor of large cities in our state do. Let's let the people decide."

You neglect to mention that the Charter Commission review is scheduled to be completed in June 2010, which may affect the Council's decision on scheduling the ballot item/s;

You encourage people to see this as a short term battle between a new mayor and the City Council, despite the fact that it is an important, fundamental matter with long term consequences;

You try to make it sound like Sacramento will fall for the old "inferiority complex" cliche and be shamed into "modernizing," to be like "just about every other... large cities in our state;"

You also try to project that, if and when a Strong Mayor system is approved by the voters (no earlier than June 2010), Kevin Johnson would automatically assume that position. Those are two separate issues, two separate votes.

"Let's let the people decide," indeed.

"Fearful"? You know what's scary? The absolute first item on this new and inexperienced mayor's agenda -- who was not even interested to learn about the currrent Council meeting process -- was to change the entire structure of City government to give himself more power.

It's also scary that since the kickoff of the petition drive, the push for the power shift depends so heavily on a lack of solid information and indulges in misleading tactics.

There are no "misleading tactics" nor a "lack of solid information." The simple facts are that enough voters signed the petitions to change our city charter. The focus of this article is whether the City Council will block this petition from appearing on the next election ballot. Had it been a state initiative, it would by law. In Sacramento, however, the City Council has the power to block it from being on the next ballot, and it may utilize that power.

Yes, I have a problem with a charter commission that lacks diversity. It doesn't look like Sacramento, and despite many citizens applying for the positions, the City Council choose many members with predetermined and/or political positions on the issue. Just do a simple cross-check of their campaign contributions in local races or who they supported in the last Mayoral election. The local city employees union even crowed about how it influenced the selection process. Do you honestly believe that this handful of citizens should singularly determine how our city is governed? Or do you think that voters should have the ability to put a measure on the ballot so they can decide for themselves?

And, by the way, the Charter Commission is scheduled to finish their work by the end of the year, not June 2010.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out" that what you just did proves the point: cherry pick comments, refute them out of context, as if "If I say it it's so" and steamroll right on through. Those ARE "misleading tactics" and obvious avoidance of "solid information," which my previous comments identified very specifically. You have also avoided backing up YOUR "thinly-veiled attempts at personal character assassination" of the City Charter Commission.

"Do you honestly believe that this handful of citizens should singularly determine how our city is governed? Or do you think that voters should have the ability to put a measure on the ballot so they can decide for themselves?"

More misleading talking points, to dumb down, emotionalize and oversimplify the process.

The Charter Commission web site says the estimated date of completion is June 2010.

Show me the bias. (see comment above)

Steven: You are running the campaign for the initiative. Failure to clearly disclose this implies that you are an impartial observer, and not the main cheerleader for the cause.

So Mr. Burg, you call that "bias"?

LOL

Some in the community would also like less "cheerleading" and more info -- are at least less disinfo.

It seems like the best way to get Steve Maviglio to shut up is to bring up Ray Kerridge's name. Something about mentioning his name magically makes people go quiet...

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

The Mayor repeatedly said this is not about the City Manager; it's about modernizing our system of government and having elected officials accountable to the voters that elected them.

The Mayor's not aware we have a Strong City Manager system of government now?

The Mayor's not aware that the Mayor and Council have the power and accountability to hire and fire the City Manager now?

"Having elected officials accountable to the voters that elected them" has nothing to do with changing the City Charter.

Steve the Strong Mayor is not a "modern" form of government. Its just different. Strong mayor has many versions as you know. Both forms of local government have its strengths and weaknesses. I like a strong mayor system but I don't like how the current "weak" mayor is presenting his proposal nor the proposal itself.

Indeed. A look forward to a full report on where the opponents of this measure are getting their money from. What's interesting is that they haven't filed a campaign report. Perhaps you can share?

Mr. Maviglio, your response clarifies for me why I now oppose the strong mayor initiative. This person took the time to relate facts and figures to correct statistical mis-statements in your article. Your response is to instead divert attention to the initiative's opponents, rather than discuss (hopefully) the facts presented.

Admittedly, the person relating this effort had some sharp things to say about the strong mayor initiative, but your response could have taken any number of roads. It could have taken the high road, admitted a mistake, and apologize. It could have taken the middle road, and discussed why you feel the need to represent the numbers that way. But it took the low road, which was to bring your opponent down to the level they painted you in. That is disappointing to me.

As someone who has lived here most of my life, I have seen enough of smearmongering and power brokering from the jokers in the big round building in the middle of our city. I don't need to see it here, in my city, in my local government, and I will not approve of any attempt to centralize power by people who use smarmy methods to gain power from the consent of the governed.

And when I say "now", I literally mean that. I was on the fence until I read your responses to this article.

The other thing, Bill, is that this was an anonymous attack. Unlike you and me, you actually say who we are, this poster doesn't. I find it difficult to have any type of civil discourse when someone hides behind a screen name.

His name should not matter. His questions and concerns should. Some people have good reasons for having screen names.

You are correct. We look forward to what the Commission comes up with!

Thank you. The public is also encouraged to participate and provide input.

Information on City Charter Review Committee
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/faqs.html

The Sacramento Bee also covered the story more in-depth, noting the statements about strong mayor/council by several committee members before they were appointed. Mr. Edgar was a campaign contributor to Mayor Fargo and a former city manager; he obviously has strong views about reducing the role of a city manager. I would hardly call that an "open mind." I respect Mr. Edgar and the Commission, several of whom are personal friends, but to suggest that several members (whose selection was pushed by the labor unions opposing the initiative) have "open minds" is questionable.

"Rag tag"? "Grassroots"? Actually not. The effort is directed and funded by two of the city's major labor unions.

It's not Sacramento High School. Sac High no longer exists.

It's Sacramento Charter High School.

My recommend for featured comment:

"It's our constitution, special and unique...if change is to occur...it will be debated and constructed for all, not crafted and exploited by a select few."