Tag Cloud
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Charter Committee deadlines for "strong mayor" study
by Kathleen Haley, published on August 31, 2009 at 9:17PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Government/Politics
No high resolution image exists...
Loading images
The city’s Charter Committee, which is studying the “strong mayor” issue and other topics, has a new schedule. The 11-member committee is examining the rules laid out in the city’s charter, which is similar to a constitution.
The new schedule was drafted after the City Council's Aug. 6 request that the committee move up its deadlines on the strong mayor issue. The issue is timely because voters will be asked to vote in June 2010 on a separate strong mayor proposal created by the Sacramentans for Accountable Government group.
The City Council unanimously decided to create the commission in February. The committee may recommend changes to the city charter. Any recommendations from the committee would need voter approval.
Charter Committee meetings, which begin at 6 p.m., are held in the City Council’s chambers on the first floor of City Hall at 915 I St.
Here are the dates and topics for Charter Committee meetings from September to January:
Thursday, Sept. 3: The meeting will address decision-making in the context of governance, budget, appointment authority, veto and term limits.
Monday, Sept. 21: The committee will review its draft report.
Thursday, Oct. 1: The committee will review preliminary public comments.
Monday, Oct. 19: Committee to approve final report on governance, budget, appointment authority, veto and term limits.
Tuesday, Nov. 3: The committee will deliver its final report during the City Council meeting, which begins at 6 p.m. The committee’s final report will cover governance, budget, appointment authority, veto, term limits.
Thursday, Nov. 5: The committee will discuss the following topics: full-time mayor, full-time City Council, ethics commission.
Monday, Nov. 16: The committee will address decision-making in the context of a full-time mayor, a full-time City Council, and an ethics commission.
Week of Nov. 23: The committee will approve its first supplemental report on full-time mayor, full-time City Council and ethics commission.
Tuesday, Dec. 1: The committee will deliver its first supplemental report at the Dec. 1 City Council meeting, which begins at 6 p.m. The first supplemental report covers the topics of full-time mayor, full-time City Council and an ethics commission.
Thursday, Dec. 3: The committee will discuss the elections process.
Thursday, Dec. 14: The elections process will be discussed again.
Thursday, Jan. 7: The committee will approve a second supplemental report on the elections process.
Tuesday, Jan. 19: At the 6 p.m. City Council meeting, the committee will deliver its second supplemental report on the elections process.
The committee notes that its new schedule is subject to change.
Source: The Sacramento Charter Review Committee schedule
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
Well, yeah, "the issue is timely," because the Council voted to push the Strong Mayor Initiative onto the June 2010 ballot, which necessitates a truncated schedule for the Sacramento Charter Review Committee.
http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=89
The public can show up and make comments directly to the charter review commission.
Or you can submit comments to them here:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/contact.html
When you’re out to “win”, dominate or control, but are subtle, underhanded or deceptive enough to hide your true intentions. Avoiding any overt display of aggression while simultaneously intimidating others into giving you what you want is a powerfully manipulative maneuver.
The public has "learned something from this" "unilateral approach." It's the same one he takes in every matter that's earned him criminal investigations, teacher/staff defections, ineligibility for Federal funds and legal payoffs/fines. Might as well call this the Unilateral Mayor Initiative.
This is a snow job and a power grab. Nothing to do with "modernization" or "accountability." It's a blatant power grab for an unqualified mayor and his power broker backers.
"Shame on those who didn't view this deceptive clown's record any deeper than spit on a hot rock to see how he could harm this city if left unchecked, and campaigned and voted for him anyway."
And are you talking about Heather Fargo being "misinformed, unqualified, emotionally immature and arrogant"? Because that's generally the consensus of her performance in the debate, including her post-debate meltdown at CSUS.
Like it or not, your candidate lost the election. The question now is whether we want the same business-as-usual government that the voters of Sacramento rejected last November, or the same type of strong mayor/council system that most cities of our size have here in California and throughout the United States.
If you don't think Kevin is doing a good job (and he could probably do nothing that would ever let that happen in your mind), then you'll have the opportunity to hold him accountable at the next election.
It was not a landslide.
I do not "devalue the citizens of this city."
The only "blatant display of misinformed, unqualified, emotionally immature and arrogant behavior" on the televised debates was Kevin Johnson's. The spin doesn't change the facts.
An example: Your candidate demanding implementation of "his" ideas for creating community forums that already existed. Mayor Fargo had to point out each time that such a forum existed and that she was deeply engaged with it. Johnson had no idea and his team had not bothered to research.
Any experienced, dedicated public official, who had to sit next to and debate such a petulant and unqualified pretender, would have felt like having a "meltdown." Few could have managed the professionalism Mayor Fargo showed during the debate; including the respectful treatment she gave Johnson while he glared, pouted and displayed his complete lack of preparation. (Unless by preparation you mean stringing slogans together as if they are meaningful).
"Business as usual"? Kevin Johnson had never attended a City Council meeting before being elected and after being elected told City staff he didn't need to learn how the meetings functioned.
When he was "knocking on doors," riling people up about unresponsive local government, Kevin and many of his fans may not actually have put much effort into contacting the City at all.
.
The sight of your candidate glowering like a spoiled child at the mayor and angrily grabbing at his water bottle was enough to show the temperament -- since he has no experience -- for policy making KJ has.
"... the same type of strong mayor/council system that most cities of our size have here in California and throughout the United States."
And Steve, as you also know, it's not "the same type of strong mayor" system at all. Each city's system is structured differently. That is one aspect of the current City Charter Review Committee process. http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/ The Strong Mayor Initiative as written would give Sacramento's mayor more unchecked power than the mayor's in those other cities. (Again with the apples and oranges...)
And clearly, the vote on the Strong Mayor Initiative and the vote on whether Kevin Johnson would be that Strong Mayor are two separate things, which should be two separate ballot items. If Kevin's people were really confident that this is what "the voters of Sacramento" want, there would be two separate votes. If Kevin really cared about the future of Sacramento, there would be two separate votes.
Your misrepresentations are unwelcome, although they will backfire, which is good. Having to address them and your attempts to "shame" the public you pretend to care about, is a nuisance.
Right now, the city is run by the city manager instead of the folks you vote into office.
Oh yeah, and our national government has an Executive/Legislative/Judicial setup--a three-way transaction. The "wrong mayor" proposal doesn't have oversight or accountability, it's all about concentrating power, and requiring supermajorities (you know, the kind that works so well when CA tries to pass a state budget) to override mayoral decisions--except for the many things that the council members won't be able to override at all anymore (like, say, removing the city manager once they are hired.)
And perhaps a history lesson for Mr. M. on why the Charter was changed to "the way it was created in the 1920s." (Of course the Charter is older, he probably knows that......)
"September 1, 2009 | 10:26 PM
Joe, actually it is BECAUSE of strong mayor/council initiative the charter commission was formed in the first place (and the Mayor voted for it). The business-as-usual crowd had no plans whatsoever to change the current form of government from the way it was created in the 1920s."
e.g.
-The Strong Mayor proposal is the same as most CA cities have, when it's not like any of the other Strong Mayor charters.
-That you don't value the voters if you criticize the process in which their signatures were gathered, or if you think that a longer consideration time should be given, to allow them to fully understand what is happening and voice their opinion.
-That the current charter doesn't give you any vote on what happens with the city manager, even though he can be removed by the city council that voters elected.
-That it's "business-as-usual" if you don't give the Mayor all the power he wants. Cuz that's "progressive", and you wouldn't want to be seen as being against "progress" would you?
(feel free to let me know if I forgot any others that need repeating in order to make them true)
Steve Maviglio is a professional liar. He is paid to tell people things that are not true, repeatedly and with great conviction, until he convinces the easily bullied and irritates the less-easily bullied into ceding the field just to get rid of him. If he tells you the sky is blue, go outside and check. He's basically Johnson's Karl Rove.
Having read stories by, and done interviews with, people who grew up in Sacramento in the 1920s and 1930s, Plaza Park (now Cesar Chavez Plaza) used to be a hotbed of politically-oriented public speaking: every popular and unpopular political opinion could be heard, typically shouted by a solitary orator with a stack of pamphlets, at the people passing through the park, while people played chess and ate lunch on the park benches. Now that the benches are held to a minimum to avoid their use by the homeless, public places don't get the kind of foot traffic needed for a juicy political dialogue, but we have the Internet for that--and a place like Sacramento Press is very good for just that sort of thing. If Maviglio & Co. can shout here, so can we, on something resembling a level playing field.
Oh yeah, did you see this?
http://www.kcra.com/politics/20697005/detail.html
Apparently the Mayor has decided his loan to the "strong mayor" campaign is now a contribution, which supposedly resolves his conflict of interest regarding the initiative issue. Another appearance of the magic checkbook to make problems go away?