Tag Cloud
Monday, March 15, 2010
Voters to decide "strong mayor" issue in June 2010
by Kathleen Haley, published on August 6, 2009 at 10:41PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Government/Politics
Community Tags: politics
No high resolution image exists...
Loading images
The contentious debate over whether Sacramento’s mayor should gain more power continues, with a divided City Council voting to put the issue on the ballot in June 8, 2010.
This means that Sacramento voters will decide at that time whether to change Sacramento’s current “council-manager” system to a “strong mayor” format.
The 5/4 vote came after a lengthy and tense discussion among councilmembers, with Councilmembers Sandy Sheedy, Rob Fong, Kevin McCarty and Bonnie Pannell voting against putting it on the June 8 ballot.
The council was debating when to place the controversial issue on the ballot for voters.
To put a strong mayor form of government into effect, voters would need to change the city’s charter. The charter is similar to a constitution, according to city officials.
The campaign, Sacramentans for Accountable Government, successfully brought the issue before voters through a petition drive. Mayor Kevin Johnson backs the campaign. The Sacramento County Registrar of Voters recently approved the campaign’s signatures -- it declared that the campaign received the required 32,433 signatures. The City Council then chose a date to put the “strong mayor” on the ballot.
Mayor Kevin Johnson pushed for the June 8 date. “People out there want to vote on June 8, 2010, and I think we should respect your wishes,” he said.
Councilman Rob Fong said that citizens have not had “a sufficient chance to weigh in.”
Meanwhile, the city’s Charter Committee is still analyzing the “strong mayor” issue. The committee was not scheduled to complete its review of the "strong mayor" issue until January. However, the Council also voted Thursday to move up the timeline for the committee’s work. The committee will now be asked to complete its analysis before Dec. 1.
The City Council had other choices: It could have voted to put the issues before voters on Nov. 3 at the earliest. It also could choose other election years between 2009 and 2012.
Opponents and proponents of the strong mayor form of government addressed the City Council -- a total of 30 citizens presented their arguments.
Devin Lavelle, communications chair of Democratic Party of Sacramento County, urged the City Council to wait for the city’s Charter Commission to present its findings. He said it was much more important “to get the job done right than to get it done quickly.”
The intent of the people who voted to place the “strong mayor” initiative on the ballot was to qualify for the earliest ballot, said Thomas Hiltachk, an attorney representing Sacramentans for Accountable Government.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Cheers,
Kathleen
Cheers,
Kathleen
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/clerk/lobbyist_registration/documents/ForwebLobbyistReport1stQuarter2009.pdf
It looks like an ols list...yet it's listed as the most current. Are you subject to registration as such...just a question.
There's no reason for me to sign up as a lobbyist.
http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/1469983.html
See that's just the problem. Oakland elects an independent City Auditor and City Attorney, who can hold the Mayor accountable and are not beholden to him for their jobs. San Francisco elects and independent City Attorney and the Mayor appoints the Controller to a 10 year term with Council approval -- giving the Controller a large degree of independence.
Mayor Johnson's initiative would allow him to hire and fire the people who are supposed to directly hold him accountable whenever he sees fit. That is not accountable government.
The Democratic Party does not necessarily oppose Sacramento having a strong mayor. It opposes THIS initiative, which was so hastily written and deeply flawed that the City Attorney has said that it would require a companion charter revision to address the numerous legal, structural and logical flaws in the Mayor's initiative.
Good public policy is good public policy. A bad law is a bad law, even if you agree with the principals. This is not good public policy.
What the Democratic Party (which, seriously, is not the Democratic Party, but a handful of people that supported Heather Fargo in the last election) did last night was to oppose the initiative being on the ballot. In other words, allowing the voters to come to their own conclusion about this proposal.
That's a dangerous area for the "Democratic Party" to go. Attempting to squash the ability of citizens to have a say about how their city operates is undemocratic.
Not true. Sacramento's enabling act would give the mayor more power, and the council fewer checks and balances, than other "strong mayor" cities' systems.
"That's a dangerous area for the "Democratic Party" to go."
So Steve, when did you change to the Republican Party--or are you just one of those "non-partisan" teabaggers now?
Responsible leaders would agree, in the matter of changing the City Charter, it is "much more important “to get the job done right than to get it done quickly” "
This inexperienced mayor made acquiring signatures, to acquire more power as mayor, his first priority as mayor. Those closest to the mayor may see this as urgent, hoping that if and when Sacramento has a "Strong Mayor," Kevin Johnson will be elected to that position.
However, the whole community needs to make an informed decision, via the City Charter Commission process, that will affect Sacramentans and the whole region, into the future.
The initiative process allows citizens to put their views on the ballot instead of through a commission of political appointments. It's unfortunate that a handful of Democrats are trying to thwart democracy.
It's unfortunate that well-meaning Sacramentans -- and the future of the region -- are being manipulated by such tactics.
You said that "those closest to the mayor may see this as urgent, hoping that if and when Sacramento has a 'Strong Mayor,' Kevin Johnson will be elected to that position."
It is important to note that If the Strong Mayor initiative is passed by voters in June 2010, the changes will immediately take place. Kevin Johnson WILL immediately become a "Strong Mayor."
One of many suggested changes to the proposal was that, if passed, the reform should go in to effect during the NEXT elected mayoral term. However, the authors of the initiative would not budge. They wanted the Strong Mayor system to apply to this, Kevin Johnson's first, mayoral term.
It is important to note that when Jerry Brown ran for mayor of Oakland, he made clear his intentions to reform the city governance system. Concurrent with his mayoral run, an initiative to reform the system and create a "Strong Mayor" form of governance was placed on the ballot.
Voters approved both and, as a result, Jerry Brown began his term under a "Strong Mayor" system.
Where Jerry Brown was above board and clear regarding his intentions, Kevin Johnson was not. The Strong Mayor initiative was filed only 8 days after he took office. He did not campaign on the initiative. His intentions were not and are not clear.
This is only one of many strong concerns I have regarding the proposal and that is to speak nothing of the flaws inherent to the bill itself.
"However, the authors of the initiative would not budge. They wanted the Strong Mayor system to apply to this, Kevin Johnson's first, mayoral term."
And it was literally their first item of business, as you say NOT revealed in the campaign, with an inexperienced mayor who ran his charter school as a Unitary Executive, in secrecy and in violation of the law.
And the spokesman is lecturing others on what real democracy is.
Wow, it's also as though this initiative was as antithetical to the ideals of the Democratic Party as healthcare reform is to the Republicans.
Please stop disseminating FALSE INFORMATION
Kevin Johnson campaigned on the Strong Mayor initiative his entire campaign....
And Burg...Finally you state the obvious..but in your code words "the ideals of the Democratic Party" are you referring to collectivism, socialism and the values of ACORN?
It really isn't very difficult if you start with the charter- available on the city's website.
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/clerk/General/codes.htm
Open Sacramento city codes, click on "City of Sacramento Charter"
Start with Articles III, IV, VII & IX-the articles that the petitioner Hiltachk states are proposed for change. Open them as show all...Then paste them into a Word or Word Perfect document.
Set Tools as "Track Changes" and simply strike out...that which is being removed, bold text that which is being added...presto change-o you can see what we have vs what is proposed.
While your at it...open the entire charter document by "show all" then use the term "city manager" in the search...remember the other tasks of the city manager, who can't receive campaign contributions, will be advisory to the mayor ( who can receive contributions) if the proposal as written , passes>
As the BEE stated...Let the debate begin!
Readers should also consider that Mr. Maviglio was strongly affiliated with the Mayor's campaign -- a campaign whose largest donors were a handful of very wealthy Republicans, so his animosity towards the Democratic Party is not surprising.
I should add that these same special interest campaign donors spent two hundred thousand dollars paying signature gatherers to get this initiative on the ballot. The people being heard the loudest are those special interests.
Is that why the push to the ballot is presented as urgent,? Maybe more people will figure out that voting for a Strong Mayor is not the same as voting for Kevin Johnson to fill that role. A deliberate process for the benefit of the community's future, may inconvenience the Johnson camp as the clock runs out.
Mr. M tries to present this as thwarting the voters, rather than a major process that means changing the City's constitution.
And the attacks on Democrats by supposed Democrats are revealing, as you point out.
Perhaps you can enlighten the commenters here how much our own Party spent against a Democrat running for Mayor. And perhaps you can detail the amount of money that the opposition to this measure has spent, since it has failed to file a report to the FPPC>
Your talking points about "needing more time" are absurd. The Republicans in Congress say they need LESS time to pass health care reform, yet our President is rightly criticizing him.
It's unfortunate you have so little respect for voters and don't think they can figure this out in 10 months. Let them decide, and get over your loss last November for the best interests of the city.
You have no respect for the process or the significance of changing the city charter that serves "the best interest of the city."
You have no respect for the voters that you expect to go along with your hollow slogans and cliches without question; nor for the voters who want to have a deliberative process and make informed decisions.
Either you’ve not read the proposal yourself or your comment was intended to be misleading. Assuming the latter, I thought I would share a few of many important difference between THIS Strong Mayor proposal and the systems currently in place in Oakland, San Francisco and across the state.
1) In the “Strong Mayor” initiative, the mayor’s proposed budget is automatically effective if council fails to approve or override the mayor’s proposed budget by the beginning of the fiscal year. This is not the case in Oakland or San Francisco. In fact, of California’s top ten cities, only Los Angeles allows this.
2) The initiative gives power to the mayor to appoint and remove the city treasurer. Again, this is not the case in Oakland or San Francisco. Only L.A. and San Diego operate in this manner.
3) The initiative proposal gives power to the mayor to appoint and remove the city clerk. Yet again, this is not the case in Oakland or San Francisco. Only L.A. operates in this manner.
4) The initiative gives power to the mayor to appoint and remove the city attorney. Not one of the top ten cities in California gives this type of unchecked authority to the mayor.
5) The initiative would also give the mayor power to select and remove subordinate city staff. Not one of the top ten cities in California allows this.
6) The proposal would give the mayor power to select and remove department heads. Only Los Angeles and San Diego allow this.
Again, these are only some of the important differences between the proposed Strong Mayor initiative and the systems currently in place in Oakland, San Francisco and across the state of California.
By giving the mayor the authority to select and remove up to 800 city staff, including such essential positions as the city treasurer, city clerk and city attorney, we eliminate vital checks and balances. This type of absolute power lends the way to absolute corruption, cronyism, and opens the door to corruption in determining labor and development contracts.
That said, I am an advocate for systemic reform in Sacramento. I am not against a Strong Mayor initiative. I am against this one.
This was not created of, for or by the people of Sacramento. It is the poorly drafted brain child of a select few, who did not take in to account the diverse needs of our growing city. As a result, it does not address them.
November 2010 would be have been an appropriate amount of time to allow for the crafting of a similar initiative that represented the needs of Sacramento while concurrently maintaining the integrity and accountability of our governance system. By pushing the initiative on to the June 2010, we lose valuable time that could have been collaborating with community stakeholders to develop reform that is truly of, for and by the people of this city.
#1 So what, if the council cannot get a budget together in time, too bad for them.
#2 So what, it's a bean counter position, and not a political one.
#3 So what, who cares, whats the downside?
#4 So what, who cares, the City Attorney represents the Mayor and Council, the mayor should be able to retain the council he feels best represents the city, and not be an unelected power broker such as we have now. Notice our current CA chimed in and gave a very biased interpretation of the initiative...proving she has political motives...she should be fired for this reason alone.
# 5 is incorrect, San Francisco does.
#6 GOOD, I want our Mayor to be able to appoint his team leaders. Right now if a Department head blows his budget, which was done by several departments over the last couple of years...nothing can be done.
And now for your trite buzz words "diverse needs" "collaborating" "community stakeholders" etc..etc..etc... blah blah blah... Just how would you propose the collaboration by community stakeholders to take place? Um..we have that... its called the ballot box. Do you think for one second that our current city council would allow the public to be involved in crafting any real changes in our Charter? Give me a break....they have no interest whatsoever in community involvement. I've been to many council meetings...some with hundreds of speakers who were not allowed to even speak...they always vote as they please on deals made in back rooms long before any council meeting...Lets call a spade a spade...they are using anti Johnson people as rubes in their plan to retain their political control.
All of the information I provided can be found in plain sight on the City of Sacramento website, which I have a feeling you are well aware of. I'm not editorializing.
I believe in solutions that represent the needs of our diverse community. Sacramento is one of the most diverse cities in the country. That isn't a buzz-phrase. It is a fact.
Your blase tone degrades the rich cultural and historical heritage of this city in an effort to degrade valid opinion.
We get the government we deserve. If the community is unwilling to remove elected officials who do not listen to them, then they are as at fault as the officials themselves.
This “Strong Mayor” proposal doesn't offer real reform. As a result, I would oppose it regardless of who was sitting in the mayor's seat.
This “Strong Mayor” proposal is so far detached from the functioning and accountable Strong Mayor systems that it claims to emulate that it hardly deserves the title.
I am an advocate of community collaboration, public discourse and a well vetted reform initiative that meets the needs of Sacramento now and paves the way for a successful future. This is not that.
And that has nothing to do with Kevin Johnson.
And as Samantha put it:
"I am an advocate of community collaboration, public discourse and a well vetted reform initiative that meets the needs of Sacramento now and paves the way for a successful future. This is not that."
That said, because Mayor Johnson chose to craft the initiative in a way that gives him the powers immediately, it partially becomes about him. Why grant the powers midterm and not wait until the next election?
But, far more important, this is very, very poor public policy. It is an egregiously poorly written document that will need either a second charter revision or a court order to make it possible to implement. It also eliminates any semblance of checks and balances in the four years between mayoral elections. Four years is a long time to wait for accountability.
What I have a problem with is how this campaign is formulated (see Mr. Maviglio's current and past comments when confronted with sometimes valid criticisms- he is the architect of this whole shebang), and what will happen when Kevin Johnson vacates office. People may like Mr. Johnson now, but what happens when he is gone? What happens when some total tool comes in, and has the chartered capactiy to effectively block any restraint upon his or her own power?
We have to live here, and live with the rules we make, once the well liked mayor is gone. Would you have trusted Heather Fargo, Anne Rudin, or Joe Serna with this much power? What about someone worse than any of them? I wouldn't have trusted ANY of them with this much power, and to be honest, I felt their power as mayor might have needed to be curtailed while they were in office. The current position is very powerful if you know how to use it (just ask Leonard Padilla, or other previous mayoral opponents).
In the end, for me, it was Mr. Maviglio's comments that drove me to change my mind about the Strong Mayor initiative, to oppose it. He is basically the architect behind this, and he represents what this is truly going to be about. Don't believe the hype that people are being negative about Kevin Johnson. Read up on the background of the people who are pushing this change forward. They will be effectively in charge once Mayor Johnson runs for governor or senator.
The flip side is, the voters DID NOT vote for Kevin Johnson to have that position as Strong Mayor. He and his handlers are trying to strongarm the city into this. They started the minute he got into office (as announced by initiative author/Johnson lawyer Tom Hiltachk at the petition drive kickoff). They didn't mention it during the campaign but it was their very first order of business on reaching power -- more power.
Anyone honorably claiming their aim is "accountability" and "transparency" would let the people decide on the two issues separately.
This campaign translates into enabling Johnson "accountable" for powers he was not elected to hold and the effort is becoming more and more "transparent."
Kevin Johnson campaigned on the Strong Mayor initiative his entire campaign....
And yes, if people who can't even put their real name on here spend seven paragraphs attacking my character, you can bet that I'm going to call them out on it.
I would hope that you would focus on the policy, rather than the personalities.
Was the specter of a lawsuit the motivation behind some of the yes votes last night? Whose money would have been spent suing the city? Some of the rich Republicans that have been supporting Johnson?
And you really should look in the mirror: the Stop the Power Grab committee has used Mayor Fargo's list, the Stonewall list, and other Democratic lists without permission (or payment).
The Chair of the Charter Review Commission testified last night that an average of 20 people show up to the meetings. This is hardly a a process of community engagement and public discourse. The Charter Review Commission was designed to muddy the waters for Johnson's proposal. Well, now they have a clear deadline to complete their work, so they better get cracking. But really, with only 20 people showing up to give input, their work shouldn't be too hard.
All that aside, the job of the Charter Review Commission is to make a suggestion to the council based on their research of other Strong Mayor systems in California. After that time, it was the council's intent to solicit public opinion on a potential initiative and systemic reform based on the Charter Commission’s suggestion.
The decision to put the initiative on the June 2010 ballot cuts short the Charter Commission’s research and review process as well as the allotment of time the council can solicit public comment.
Since when do research and due process “muddy the waters?”
The work of the Charter Review Commission combined with council debate and a solid public vetting have the potential to pave the way for true systemic reform.
For me, the most interesting aspect was the sight of unpaid citizen delegates of all political stripes (some of whom have been strong supporters Mayor Johnson) working in good will on the review/reform process and grappling with tough issues of city governance. (And my goodness, thoughtfully governance of a city as wonderfully diverse as Sacramento should be hard...nothing easy-peasy about it.)
But your point of minimal public participation up to this point is a good one. What is needed, in my estimation, at every level of government is renewed sense of direct citizen engagement and involvement--bringing the public back to public policy making. That more folks haven't shown up is an issue of outreach and must certainly be addressed. In this country, even if there are few people showing up in person, we still attempt to fully educate the electorate...I hope we're not on the verge of abandoning that core principle here in Sacramento.
Still, the fact is the Review Commission business is being conducted in the open, while the Hiltachk plan was drafted in the dark. Justice Brandeis' words still hold, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
You just proved my point. The Charter Review Commission was not designed to be a serious body to put forth any real proposals to change the charter. It was put forth by the city council only muddy the waters on the debate for the Strong Mayor Initiative. That the commission is loaded with land use attorneys, political hacks and at least two members who have publicly stated their opposition to the Strong Mayor Initiative should tell anyone that this is not a serious effort.
"Since when do research and due process “muddy the waters?”
The strong arm tactics used by the Strong Mayor proponents insult the community, the commission and the intelligence of the voters.
If you and Mr. M take too many potshots at the Charter Review Commission's members and motivations, more people may get curious about the power brokers behind the power grab and their motivations.
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/faqs.html
How can I participate in the process?
Charter Review Committee meetings are open to the public and are held in the City Council Chambers at 915 I Street.
Every meeting includes a public comment period.
The meetings are also streamed live over the internet via the City’s website at www.cityofsacramento.org.
Meeting agendas and video archives of the meetings are also posted on the City’s website.
Comments may be provided to the Charter Review Committee by visiting the Charter Review Committee website at www.cityofsacramento.org/charter and clicking on the “Contact Us” link on the left column.
You mean the 20 people who show up for the meetings? Look, I'm no fan of the Strong Mayor Proposal. For something as important as a revision to our charter, it should have gone through a charter reform commission first. A properly funded, non-hack and land use attorney loaded commission that has a real mandate to do public outreach and due diligence.
The Mayor's proposal is poorly crafted and should be voted down based on it's own deficiencies. But don't try to put forth the notion that the proposal the charter reform commission will put forth is any less pre-packaged than the Mayor's.
The Mayor failed by not building any consensus with his colleagues on the Board around this issue. He should have worked with them and together they could have formed a commission that solicited real input from the citizens of Sacramento on what they wanted a strong mayor proposal to look like here. The commission should have been properly funded, appointed with competent individuals and held meetings throughout the city. When it was ready to be placed on the ballot, it would have already had significant public buy in.
As it is now, we will have two competing proposals. The Mayor's poorly written proposal, and the Charter review commission's that will be placed on the ballot only to confuse voters. I predict both measures will fail.
I'm glad you agree with me that the charter commission was politically motivated and set up to confuse the voters.
"You mean the 20 people who show up for the meetings?"
Doubtful that all those folks represent "the power brokers behind the power grab and their motivations."
"The Mayor failed by not building any consensus with his colleagues on the Board around this issue. He should have worked with them and together they could have formed a commission that solicited real input from the citizens of Sacramento on what they wanted a strong mayor proposal to look like here."
That would have been a responsible and mature way to behave, with respect -- at some level -- to due process. Instead, this demonstration has been classic Kid In A Candy Shop: reckless, ham handed, thoughtless and narcissistic. Enabled by those hidden power brokers who assume that all of this is a foregone conclusion.
Who cares what the other council members think about an initiative brought forth and signed by the electors of this city. I believe in the initiative process. If someone, anyone has an idea for change, they are allowed to gather signatures through a PUBLIC PROCESS and have a vote...that's called democracy...those that oppose this process, oppose our system of government and as far as I am concerned have no credibility.
No worries, I appreciate the kind words.
Why would ANYONE be opposed to allowing the VOTERS to decide this issue? Under the laws of this state, the voters signed the petition as required, and the council must put it on the ballot. Those that are against this, are opposed to Democracy and our constitution. The only reason to delay putting it on the ballot, is to allow the councils Kangaroo Charter Committee to write a competing Charter amendment which will do nothing to change our City. They wont even put in campaign contribution limits (Which were just lifted by the Council) Nor will they include strong ethics rules for council members.
One of the most important things to understand about this initiative is that, Johnson WOULD NEED the council to vote on all of his initiatives, it does not give him complete free reign. Right now he has no reins at all to guide this cow town.
This all boils down to a fear and loathing for the democratic process in a town which is entirely controlled by Democrats. (The irony is dripping..isn't it...it's always the Democrats who scream for more "Democracy") The Democrats do not believe that voters are intelligent enough to elect a good leader; alternatively they fear that ONE strong leader responsible to the voters could sidetrack many of the back room deals they have made with developers and for their campaign contributors.
From a simplistic view, it's much easier to control ONE strong leader than NINE weak leaders who each have their own agenda's and campaign contributors to answer to.
The current kangaroo charter review committee was formed for the sole purpose of stopping Johnson's strong mayor initiative, or any other mayor from becoming powerful enough to thwart runaway government spending habits and to keep political power decentralized. Obviously, council members also have an interest in retaining as much political power as possible.
The Democrats & unions do not want citizens of Sacramento to even have the option of electing a mayor who can control spending. Right now, the decision on spending is up to an unelected bureaucrat and 9 council members, all with their own political agendas and all being being owned outright by unions, developers and the Democratic Party; none of whom have any interest whatsoever in controlling the City's spending habits.
Johnson's team intends to go straight to the voters with his initiative that could turn our cow town into the City he has envisioned. In response, and out of great fear, council members formed an anti strong mayor kangaroo charter commission; they are also prepared to place a competing initiative on the ballot. Initially they clearly backed Johnson off and he pulled the initiative. The problem is...he backed off, and they haven't...they are marching full steam ahead with their plan to prevent any future mayor from gaining power in this city. Johnson was left with a choice, allow the kangaroo commission to put an anti strong mayor initiative on the ballot, or to go forward with his plans and let the voters make the decision. This is how democracy is supposed to work. Let the People make decisions like this that will define the future they envision for Sacramento
Sacramento will never evolve into a “real” city until we have strong & accountable leadership with the power to make substantive change. Regardless of anyone’s personal views of Johnson, he will only be mayor for a relatively short time, if we want get control of our budget and become the City that most Sacramentan's want, we should follow Oakland, San Diego's and San Francisco's lead by giving our mayor the tools he/she needs to lead.
Your usage of offensive clichés and bullying doesn't change the facts.
The Strong Mayor proposal that is to be placed on the June 2010 ballot does not follow the lead of other Strong Mayor systems in the state. The proposal was so poorly written, it will require a second ballot initiative or a court order to fill in the gaping legal holes.
Sacramento deserves better. Let's give the community the opportunity to address real reform.
The community will have an opportunity in June of 2010 to vote on this matter...after a year and a half of review of the proposal...
I hope you've been going to the Charter review committee meetings regularly to give your input... I'm sure they are very willing to listen to the public...and listen and listen and listen...yet nothing you say will mean anything to them...doh...
Spoken like someone who fears and loathes Sacramento. We already have a "real" city, its one of the oldest ones on this coast. Please respect it, its traditions, and the people who are actually showing up to try and make things work. Democracies are only ratified by those that vote- they are run by those that show up. If you don't like the process, then show up and work with other people to change it.
You could have gone the other direction and told me what you HAVE done instead. It might have even opened some doors, possibly convinced me that Mr. Maviglio's behavior on this site was the exception, rather than the rule for your cause, but that wasn't on your mind, was it? From this thread and others, I can see that the best I can do at this point is only wish you a nice weekend.
As for Maviglio, I like him personally, but do not agree with his politics or his campaign strategies. I also think he should stay off blogs, he should be above it, I would have others respond like the opposition forces do on this site and on the Bee's site.
As for Johnson, he is extremely charismatic, and much more intelligent than comes across in the press or on blogs like this. But I also believe he has stumbled, listens too much to the brown nosing "yes" men that surround him, made huge mistakes, cow towed to developers while handing them sweetheart deals, tens of millions of taxpayers money, free land owned by the taxpayers (something Heather Fargo was very adept at doing as well). The leaders of this town believe they have to give their contributors anything they ask for to get elected..they are wrong, and I believe that the 2010 council elections will prove this. I however do share his views of improving Sacramento and bringing it into the third millennium; which will never happen as long as we have a weak major system. Despite his flaws and his associations, Johnson is our Mayor, I wish him well, and I hope his stated vision of Sacramento can be fulfilled.
- 9 of the 10 aspects of the strong mayor initiative are in alignment with the League of Cities model city charter
- Teichert's "comparisons" are often apples to oranges, i.e. suggesting that "the initiative gives power to the mayor to appoint and remove the city attorney. Not one of the top ten cities in California gives this type of unchecked authority to the mayor", which ignores the fact that some of the comparison cities have elected city attorneys.
- There are 16 elements to the strong mayor initiative, but Teichert's report only analyzes five of them.
- The strong mayor initiative proposes seven substantive changes to the Council, but Teichert's comparison and analysis only discuss one.
Making sweeping claims based on this document amounts to flawed arguments. Perhaps the commission will produce a more objective report that will provide for more objective dialogue.
I was looking forward to further research and find it disappointing that they will have less time in which to complete it.
Regarding your critique of Teichert's comparisons: You're correct. Some cities do elect individuals in to those seats. If the language of the so-called "Strong Mayor" proposal suggested that the city attorney become an elected position, I would find that acceptable. Allowing voters to elect the city attorney ensures accountability. However, it does not.
The "Strong Mayor" proposal removes accountability and does not address ways to restore it.
Teichert's comparisons draw distinctions between accountable systems of governance and a proposal that is flawed by design.
While there may be some portions of the proposal that have merit, it is too inherently flawed to be seriously considered.
And pushing the vote up detracts from the overall process.
Quoting Samantha Corbin above:
"This was not created of, for or by the people of Sacramento. It is the poorly drafted brain child of a select few, who did not take in to account the diverse needs of our growing city. As a result, it does not address them.
"November 2010 would be have been an appropriate amount of time to allow for the crafting of a similar initiative that represented the needs of Sacramento while concurrently maintaining the integrity and accountability of our governance system. By pushing the initiative on to the June 2010, we lose valuable time that could have been collaborating with community stakeholders to develop reform that is truly of, for and by the people of this city."
Please tell us how long do we need to get the "diverse needs of our growing city" of the "community stakeholders" heard? last time I checked...voters were community stakeholders....voters will have had a YEAR AND A HALF to review the initiative prior to voting on it.... AND the opportunity to place a competing initiative on the ballot.... should we wait two three or four years?
Just say what you really mean Marion... like most who comment on this site, and on the Bee's site, you're against Johnson and anything he tries to do.
If you and others who buy their simplistic version of this important issue, give Johnson and his backers more power than they already have and free "rein" to "reign" over Sacramento, this will be MORE of a cow town than it has EVER been.
If opponents of the current initiative want to gather signatures and put their own initiative on the ballot they are free to do so.
All of the comments that claim there was no public process are red herrings.... the public process was followed to the letter. If your not happy with the public process, then I suggest contacting your state representatives, and city council members, and lobby them to change state law and our city charter which details the entire public process necessary to get an initiative on the ballot.
You can also attend the Charter Review committee meetings and make public comments. If they come up with a competing initiative, then the public will be able to decide between the two. That's how our system works.
That line of thinking is exactly why I am concerned about handing the authority to ANY mayor to simply fire city attorneys who disagree with his politics...
To be clear - I am not against putting this flawed initiative on the ballot. It does rightfully deserve to be voted upon. I will exercise my rights as a voter and vote against it.
I do attend the Charter Committee meetings. In fact, in the past, I have brought my seven year old along so that she can learn about governance and how important concepts like "due process" are.
I fully expect the Charter Committee to make a suggestion to the City Council and, from there, I expect a competing initiative to surface. I also fully expect to make public comments at that time.
My frustration is with the lack of time between the Committee's report and the June 2010 election. This leaves little time for appropriate public debate on an important issue.
I say this even believing, in my own opinion, that Willie Brown was also as corrupt as any politician who ever lived, but he got great things done and the city is much better for having had him as Mayor. After all, I believe that almost all politicians are corrupt...lets just get the one that gets things done.
The ability to govern effectively is linked to the quality and character of a leader. The system must have checks and balances in place to protect us from leaders who have neither.
Also, business left AFTER Brown was in office, he brought hundreds of new businesses to SF. SOMA and Pac Bell Park was all his doing. Retail business flourished while he was Mayor, mainly due to a very robust economy....Businesses left after he left office because SF Supervisors created an anti-business climate...as was also happening in the rest of California..and continues.
Under Newsome, they have the worst conviction rates in California, I think the worst in the Nation in fact, and now Kamala Harris dreams of becoming the states top cop...what a joke.
With a Strong Mayor, it is important to vote in the right candidate, but that should always be the case....if they are corrupt or ineffective, they can be shown the door.
The problem is that Sacramento is a public employee union controlled town...they put their wallets and what is best for the unions well ahead of what is best for their community or the nation. This whole issue is about the politics of control...not about what is best for our community and what will bring jobs and businesses....What all of you government employees keep forgetting is that without a flourishing and successful private sector to pay taxes, you would not have a job.
The nature of politics in America is such that ALL politicians are corrupt. They are corrupted by our campaign financing scheme, but as it is, there is nothing the citizens can do to change this short of changing the US constitution or circulating an initiative for publicly financed campaigns. (which would be invalidated if it attempted to restrict private campaign contributions, the SCOTUS has already declared this "free speech")
I support the Strong Mayor initiative because in the long term I believe the People will be able to control ONE Strong Mayor easier than 8-9 council members. I believe that this initiative will allow Sacramentans to elect better leadership in the future. This is also the great fear of the Democratic Party, this initiative will open the door for Independents, fiscal conservatives, or even REAL environmentalists to run for office and win. (not those that simply wrap themselves in a Green cloak to get elected) I believe it will entice a larger field of candidates to run for office and give Sacramentans a much better choice than the typical developer or union controlled candidates. And yes I know this initiative is paid for by developers...so what...we can use their money to bring about change.
The next step is to start a vocal movement to remove all candidates owned completely by developers. Where are the Greenies, environmentalists and Sierra Club folks? Well they are supporting unsustainable over-development, urban sprawl and the destruction of irreplaceable farmland in Sacramento...look who they support, and look what those they support have done...built stucco Zions and strip malls for huge profits for the developers.
Many who have posted their opinions on this proposal are short sighted or knee jerkers because they dislike Johnson...I look for the long term implications and unintended consequences of this initiative....I believe it could be used to the advantage of those who want substantive change to the political paradigm in Sacramento. Right now I will support any shake up of what has been the norm.