Several legal issues in the “strong mayor” initiative that were raised by Sacramento’s city attorney will likely not be addressed by the City Council. After listening to a Tuesday night presentation by City Attorney Eileen Teichert, councilmembers did not suggest taking any future actions to resolve the issues. Instead of taking action on the legal issues that were raised by Teichert, some councilmembers said they look forward to analyzing the Charter Review Committee’s upcoming recommendatio... KathleenHaley Marion Millin 2009-09-19T06:28:15Z 2009-09-19T06:28:15Z

Don't bully again. You're welcome.

Marion Millin 2009-09-19T06:28:15Z TomRunge 2009-09-19T06:12:39Z 2009-09-19T06:12:39Z

Thank you. Please don't call me a "bully" again.

TomRunge 2009-09-19T06:12:39Z Marion Millin 2009-09-19T03:14:53Z 2009-09-19T03:14:53Z

TR: What you refer to as "name calling" is not name calling. Your interpretation suggests what might be termed "illiterate." If you can't read objectively and act responsibly, just skip my comments, as I will ignore yours.

Marion Millin 2009-09-19T03:14:53Z Casey Kirk 2009-09-19T00:20:48Z 2009-09-19T00:20:48Z

At The Sacramento Press, we certainly encourage debate but do not condone personally attacking one another. Please keep the commentary civil and refer to our Terms of Use for any questions you might have: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/23 If there is a particular comment you find offensive, please feel free to use our flagging system and we will review the comment in question.

Casey Kirk 2009-09-19T00:20:48Z TomRunge 2009-09-19T00:05:40Z 2009-09-19T00:05:40Z

Marion, please refer to this thread for evidence of name calling: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/13176/Sacramento_City_Police_Arrest_17_Homeless_Campers

TomRunge 2009-09-19T00:05:40Z Marion Millin 2009-09-18T22:31:29Z 2009-09-18T22:31:29Z

Savvysydsam, thanks for the backup. Apparently, TomRunge doesn't understand the comparison is between HIM and JimKnapp, our two resident SacPress cyberbullies. Oh, I guess that's namecalling, isn't it. Anyone who wants to spar with their abusive arrogance is welcome to. Others will ignore them. Those who consider valid criticism of attitudes or behavior as "namecalling" -- even the Mayor's spokeman -- want to avoid responsibility, by blaming those who call them on their nonsense.

Marion Millin 2009-09-18T22:31:29Z Marion Millin 2009-09-18T22:16:29Z 2009-09-18T22:16:29Z

TomRunge's comment is not only a personal attack, it is slander. I have not called anyone names on SacPress ever and never will. I have identified behavior that is objectionable and abusive and will continue to do so. In the case of the Mayor's spokesman, it is important enough to point out. Except for this direct attack and slander against me and my name, TomRunge, other abusers and their "weak arguments" are not worthy of comment.

Marion Millin 2009-09-18T22:16:29Z Susie Shields 2009-09-18T17:27:25Z 2009-09-18T17:27:25Z

Well, Tom you're entitled to your opinion...and I am entitled to mine. Are you related to Carol?

Susie Shields 2009-09-18T17:27:25Z TomRunge 2009-09-18T05:44:14Z 2009-09-18T05:44:14Z

You should ask Marion about the homeless in Sacramento and see how quickly the personal attacks come out. I've had plenty to say to Jim Knapp about his Neanderthal views on gays. If you're trying to compare Marion favorably to him, you're not helping your cause.

TomRunge 2009-09-18T05:44:14Z Susie Shields 2009-09-18T05:35:33Z 2009-09-18T05:35:33Z

Tom, I have to respectfully disagree with you. You may not agree with Marion, but she is very informed on all issues. I haven't seen you get upset with Jim Knapp who is ten times worse than Marion could ever be as far as calling people names on this site. Steve M. I have seen you attack people personally on all kinds of websites. It's how you try to discredit your detractors. Unfortunately, it makes you look passive-aggresive and petty. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Susie Shields 2009-09-18T05:35:33Z TomRunge 2009-09-18T03:54:02Z 2009-09-18T03:54:02Z

What makes a man black?

TomRunge 2009-09-18T03:54:02Z TomRunge 2009-09-18T03:53:18Z 2009-09-18T03:53:18Z

Marion Millin loves to call other people names on this site. It's become a familiar, but still tiresome, pattern with her posts. Don't expect any points based on facts to come from her......like most people with weak arguments, all she has is an arsenal of personal attacks.

TomRunge 2009-09-18T03:53:18Z Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T22:53:18Z 2009-09-17T22:53:18Z

Steve Maviglio- For goodness sake I'm not attacking you. Surely if Councilmember Pannell was worried about the public hearing, reading. learning what she said she would not have said it in a televised council hearing. Mayor Johnson may be new to city hall but Councilmember Pannell has been around the block and knows full well whatever she says can be printed. As for her reasons, guess you have to ask her- You're closer than I. Aren't you hanging around city hall stirring things up? Again, I do not know her reason. I have had no discussions with her. My focus at this time is the strong mayor proposal. Perhaps if Mayor Johnson would spend more time speaking with his colleagues informing them when they'll be transferred out a committee instead of blindsiding them with it -- to get a reaction, blindsided them with the strong mayor proposal... perhaps we'd have less confusion and outbursts... in city hall. I know I'd hate to be a team member and work blind-folded and blind-sided as the Mayor works closer with advisors, assistants, personal lawyers... If the CITY Mayor worked with the CITY counsel, CITY attorney, CITY manager and stopped working with you to conquer and divide.. perhaps things would settle. Again, it all goes back to you and Mayor Johnson.... With every councilmember what you see is what you get. Only with Mayor Johnson do you have to look, search, dig for truth and agenda's... I can't speak for Councilmember Pannell. I've attended city hall for several years and never have I seen so much division.... until Johnson (both when a candidate and now as mayor) Perhaps if councilmembers had so many spokespersons, "special" assistants, "special" volunteers... as Mayor Johnson words would be guarded as you appear to guard Mayor Johnson's... Maviglio I could give you several lists of "perhaps" this or that but the fact remains you have yet to answer my question on why you divide CITY representatives? And here's another question, if Johnson can cause so much division, confusion, anger, mistrust... in city hall with a weak mayor structure what will it be like with a strong mayor structure? (oh I have lots of questions) FYI, I've stood up to more deceitful folks than you (yeah, shocking as it may seem- but true) I can recognize a wolf in sheeps clothing miles away not to mention I can spot a fox entering and leaving a foxhole (city hall). Have a good day. Don't you have some city business for the Mayor to tend to or is your job now a "special assistant" to monitor sites and do damage control?

Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T22:53:18Z Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:59:44Z 2009-09-17T21:59:44Z

It's good to see someone point out "the only thing transparent about Mayor Johnson since he's been in office is the fact we can see right through you." The deceit and games are shameful. The game is to try to shame those who call them on it. Seems crazy? It is. That's how politics are "done" these days. That's how Kevin got elected -- misleading people. Slogans, not substance. Find a weak spot, hand them their hats, as you have in your excellent posts, and they'll try to turn it around, use it in their next propaganda item. Or, like Steve, resort to false accusations and strawmen arguments. Your comments are much appreciated. SacPress doesn't mind long comments (Lucky for me!!) You can also Edit you posts with the blue Edit button. The time of the comment will be updated to when you Edited. It's good when people trust their own judgement enough to recognize trickery and get "caught up in the moment" enough to say, "Oh Hell no!" Hell no, we won't Maviglio.

Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:59:44Z Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:52:44Z 2009-09-17T21:52:44Z

Kevin wants to be King of Sacramento. He's already named it "K-Town." None of this is about public service or community. It's a blatant power grab, just like his previous ones (worked in "back room deals"). Maybe so blatant that some people don't believe what they're seeing... yet. The Council has certainly been shocked into a reality check by Kevin's actions in Council Meetings. "The only thing transparent about Mayor Johnson since he's been in office is the fact we can see right through you." Absolutely brilliant.

Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:52:44Z Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:48:13Z 2009-09-17T21:48:13Z

The City Council are politicians and the City Attorney is their expert on the legal issues. Your point is?

Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:48:13Z Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:45:58Z 2009-09-17T21:45:58Z

I have not "resorted to namecalling and personal character attacks" any more than Rhonda did (she didn't, as I pointed out). Those who identify your behavior and point out to you how damaging it is -- to the mayor, to his agenda, to the discussion -- are accused of bruising your ego and are personally attacked by you. (Some of)Those who see through your games are not inclined to play them. If you consider every accurate comment on your professional behavior as an attack on your personal character, perhaps you had better reconsider both. Thank you. As Rhonda says, "The only thing transparent about Mayor Johnson since he's been in office is the fact we can see right through you."

Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:45:58Z Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:40:35Z 2009-09-17T21:40:35Z

If you consider every accurate comment on your professional behavior as an attack on your personal character, perhaps you had better reconsider both. Thank you. As Rhonda says, "The only thing transparent about Mayor Johnson since he's been in office is the fact we can see right through you."

Marion Millin 2009-09-17T21:40:35Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:05:55Z 2009-09-17T21:05:55Z

The council member made a specific comment about race and gender, inappropriate to the discussion of the initiative.

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:05:55Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:05:20Z 2009-09-17T21:05:20Z

Again, I did not make the comment. Ms. Pannell did and the SacPress writer wrote about it. The person who brought up the issue was a city council member. The comment, in my view, is inappropriate. So go ahead and attack me. The facts remain the same.

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:05:20Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:03:27Z 2009-09-17T21:03:27Z

Agreed.

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:03:27Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:03:09Z 2009-09-17T21:03:09Z

It's unfortunate that you always seem to resort to namecalling and personal character attacks. Apparently you dont have the ability to make sound arguments based on facts. I didn't raise the issue of race. The Councilmember did. Are you defending it? And if so, please let Sacpress readers know why you think the comment about race in a discussion about the initiative is relevant?

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:03:09Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:00:58Z 2009-09-17T21:00:58Z

And thank you for yet another personal character attack which does not nothing to move the debate further

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T21:00:58Z Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T20:54:51Z 2009-09-17T20:54:51Z

Thank you Marion. I appreciate the post you wrote. Maviglio is a disappointment and I didn't attack him due to a comment made by councilmember Pannel. I didn't attack him I questioned him and it wasn't just because of that comment It's been building up and building up. He's gone after so many it just got to me. But it feels good to know you understood my reasoning. It's good to see truth in the midst of so much deceit. I wish I would of just stated this instead of the long post. I was caught up in the moment having again seen trickery...

Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T20:54:51Z Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T20:46:50Z 2009-09-17T20:46:50Z

Steve Maviglio. The writer of the article is not a spokesperson for the Mayor. You claim to be. And the Mayor has given you that role. The writer of the article should point out what's said by councilmembers. The public has a right to know. But you sir, are suppose to be a representative for the Mayor and the Mayor is SUPPOSE to be a representative for the City and the City council are suppose to be his colleagues- they are suppose to be a team. (a team you appear to keep attempting to divide) If you made the comment and were not a spokesperson for the Mayor I'd have no complaints. If you were a spokesperson for KJ the former basketball player I'd have no complaints. But you claim to speak for the MAYOR a Mayor who has no right to give you the power THE PUBLIC entrusted to him (be our voice) The mayor of Sacramento is suppose to represent us- the general public- we the general public vote a councilmember into office from our district to represent us- I'm in district 8- Pannel's district. If you want to attack the city manager (and you have), attack the city attorney (and you have) attack our councilmembers (and you have) that's your right BUT AS LONG as the PUBLIC SERVANT MAYOR puts you as a spokesperson for the CITY (he fails to realize you speak for the city- the mayor is NO longer self he is suppose to be the eyes, ears, voice, representative of the city residents) I'll comment on what you have to say. He's mayor now so you're no longer spokesperson for KJ, former basketball player... He kept you on to speak and that'll make you spokesperson for the city- the mayor is the city. I don't know why he thinks he is ruler. You can't have it both ways, give up your position or each time you speak let it be known "you are not speaking for the mayor or the city...' Mayor Johnson needs to realize he is a servant of the PEOPLE and letting you continuously be his spokesperson is abusing the power we gave him when he became mayor. So when you no longer speak for the "mayor' = "city of sacramento" and just speak for KJ the former basketball player and when the mayor no longer takes the power we gave him to be our voice and gave it to you... then I'll care less what you have to say. I don't trust or value "your" opinion. But as a spokesperson for the city (mayor) you should not have tried to further divide CITY colleagues by your comment. And if our Mayor wasn't appearing so weak and was strong he'd see you've done more harm than good. And just so you'll know 2 wrongs don't make a right. I'm not dismissing what was said. I noticed you again avoided my questions and found a way to again elaborate on Pannel to again take the attention off the abusive Strong Mayor Proposal. Your fastest move will be my slowest. The only thing transparent about Mayor Johnson since he's been in office is the fact we can see right through you.

Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T20:46:50Z bsteele 2009-09-17T18:02:59Z 2009-09-17T18:02:59Z

The city council would be wise to let due process play itself out; consider the recommendations from the city’s charter committee on the strong mayor form of government and proceed accordingly. Leave the politics at home and the legal issues to the experts.

bsteele 2009-09-17T18:02:59Z bbbbmer 2009-09-17T10:53:03Z 2009-09-17T10:53:03Z

KJ is as 'black' as I am -- and I'm not...

bbbbmer 2009-09-17T10:53:03Z bbbbmer 2009-09-17T10:52:22Z 2009-09-17T10:52:22Z

Prop 8 is distinguishable from municipal use of the initiative process to change charters -- the two cases are not analogous.

bbbbmer 2009-09-17T10:52:22Z bbbbmer 2009-09-17T10:47:47Z 2009-09-17T10:47:47Z

Obviously the council and the public are now growing very wary of Johnson and his tribe of covert, paid 'volunteers', especially those at the helm of this utterly flawed 'strong mayor' power grab, and now some of Johnson's key campaign supporters, including Sandy Sheedy, Bill Camp, and a host of others, quite overtly oppose this empty-suited mayor's attempt to install a governance granting unprecedented authority using an initiative that has serious legal and constitutional exposure, and which could cost the city MILLIONS should it be passed. Eileen Teichert's analysis was SPOT ON, and I find it laughable that not only KJ's non-lawyer staff is passing judgment about Teichert's painstakingly thorough analysis, but that even the proposal's drafter, Mr. Hiltchak (sp? whatever....) couldn't even muster a few legitimate authorities against Teichert's very specific assertions regarding on point governing law over municipal initiatives to amend or revise charters, and proved his lack of competence not only in simple legal drafting and constitutional adherence, but also in terms of succinct oral argument in opposition to what was probably the most thorough explanation of this proposal's implications to date. Frankly it appeared that he was just trying to cover his legal ass from very possible errors and omissions (malpractice) claims by the SAG (oy, what a name!) group resulting from his poor fundamental legal work -- that is, if he wasn't one of the group's founders... Finally we're seeing KJ's 'team' squirm at the very real prospect of the Council to withdraw balloting of this measure now that a very clear analysis of the city's legal exposures has shown the light of day on this measure blaringly before their eyes...

bbbbmer 2009-09-17T10:47:47Z Marion Millin 2009-09-17T09:19:40Z 2009-09-17T09:19:40Z

Rhonda is not "attacking you personally." She has perfectly and appropriately identified the "trickery" and "deceit" that you employ on behalf of the mayor. It makes him look bad. She also correctly attributed the tactics to you, as his spokesperson. Will you continue to do this and convince more and more Sacramentans that the whole power grab stinks? That your ham handed attempt to deflect the "back room deal" discussion to one about race is cynical and hypocritical? That when the public on SacPress simply reflects and identifies your bag of dirty tricks, your only response is to attack them? We can only hope.

Marion Millin 2009-09-17T09:19:40Z Marion Millin 2009-09-17T09:13:04Z 2009-09-17T09:13:04Z

The key point Councilmember Pannell made was "BACK ROOM DEALS." Whatever party and whatever color, THAT is what is problematic here.

Marion Millin 2009-09-17T09:13:04Z Marion Millin 2009-09-17T09:05:56Z 2009-09-17T09:05:56Z

Steve, it's always refreshing when you take a break from coming to SacPress to disinform and attack the public, in a classic bit of nonsense like your previous comment.

Marion Millin 2009-09-17T09:05:56Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:24:45Z 2009-09-17T07:24:45Z

Yeah, those people that are creating jobs in our city, improving Midtown, and providing affordable housing are so wrong to want a Mayor that can actually deal with to move the city forward instead of a city council that takes forever to get anything done and focuses on bureaucracy. Thank you, Mr. Burg, for the inertia that is K Street.

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:24:45Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:20:05Z 2009-09-17T07:20:05Z

Actually, only the City Attorney believes there's a problem with the initiative. She has provided zero case law to back up her claim, nor an elections attorney who agrees with her. It's a legal red herring.

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:20:05Z Tony Sheppard 2009-09-17T07:18:50Z 2009-09-17T07:18:50Z

The same-gender marriage proposal took a single group of people and caused them to be treated differently in a constitution that is otherwise built upon the concepts of equality and fairness - that's far more fundamental at the constitutional level than issues regarding contract negotiations.

Tony Sheppard 2009-09-17T07:18:50Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:18:47Z 2009-09-17T07:18:47Z

Devin. Maybe you can explain why the Democratic Party of Sacramento is spending its resources attacking a Democratic mayor instead of attacking Republicans? Or maybe explain why the strong mayor system is good enough for the two Democratic candidates for Governor (Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom) and their cities but somehow a disaster for Sacramento. Is it because the party insiders are still smarting from not having endorsed the Mayor last year and having the majority of Democratic voters support him?

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:18:47Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:16:57Z 2009-09-17T07:16:57Z

Wow. What a shame that you seem to have the need to attack me personally because I commented on a statement that Ms. Pannell made in public at a City Council meeting that was clearly inappropriate and divisive. The writer of the article clearly thought it was worth mentioning. And while you might want to dismiss it she said what she said. If she didn't mean it, she shouldn't have said it. Or perhaps she should apologize for it.

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:16:57Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:09:31Z 2009-09-17T07:09:31Z

Exactly Tony. Only twice in 100 years of court tests. This isn't even close. It's just the City Attorney trying desperately into her bag of legal tricks to stop the initiative at any cost. Sad.

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-17T07:09:31Z Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T05:19:11Z 2009-09-17T05:19:11Z

Mr Maviglio, the more comments I read from you the more concern I become. WHY don't you work to unite the counsel on matters? Why do you work to continuously separate and divide? Why do you send false messages by omitting truth? I read this article and saw more than Councilmember Pannell's comment. But you on the other hand wanted to quickly focus on it - make it a distraction- and draw attention away from anything else written and you know better. You know what you were doing. If you had genuine concern for the city of Sacramento as a whole and not just one individual (the mayor) perhaps your comments wouldn't be so concerning. I believe it's YOU dividing. And I blame the Mayor for keeping you on as a spokesperson and not publically or privately dismissing you ... You had a chance to show genuine concern but just as you did Teichert you'd rather further divide. WHY? I have to fight hard not to become meanspirited towards Johnson when actually it's you I grow angry at. It's your trickery which angers me more than anything else. Do you know who convinced me not to vote yes on the strong mayor proposal? YOU. I dislike deceit. And if Johnson keeps you on he appears to be the tree the deceiftul fruit falls from. Sacramento Press: I've read articles on this site and never posted a comment. Today I couldn't help myself. I apologize for the length of my posts but tonight this weighed heavy on my heart .. Thank you for the article and allowing me to post.. Rhonda Erwin

Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T05:19:11Z Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T04:18:01Z 2009-09-17T04:18:01Z

Councilmember Pannell is not racist. I don't know why she made the comment she did and perhaps due to so much backroom shady special interest deals, but I do know she is not racist. If she were looking at race she'd blindly vote yes on the strong mayor proposal simply because the mayor is black. I hope race doesn't come into play and become a distraction... And regarding Mayor Johnson's comment "Let’s not play political games.” well kind of late for that since he's played so many games. Gheez, the game of making the loan a gift at the last minute- gheez

Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T04:18:01Z Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T04:10:16Z 2009-09-17T04:10:16Z

Ronald West; you're correct "People of all colors, genders, shapes and sizes will have the opportunity to offer their input on June 8, 2010.". Hopefully we'll have an opportunity to have a clear and transparent understanding of exactly what we'll vote on. You and Steve Maviglio are sending so many false messages on so many sites. Steve Maviglio: you wrote "If Ms. Pannell is concerned about diversity, she ought to look at the Charter Commission that she favored and voted for. Not exactly reflective of our city's diversity. councilmember Pannell " Mr Maviglio, You have been a contributing factor to the division brewing within city hall. You have been a liability verses an asset to Mayor Johnson. Councilmember Pannell must of been concerned with diversity. She chose Grantland Johnson (former county supervisor, former councilmember) and happens to be black. She couldn't choose the entire panel (and no one person should be able to) Obviously she doesn't have a problem with the make up of the charter committee she voted for it and didn't complain so she must not have a problem with race. She has a problem, which goes beyond race, with the special interest make up of the Strong mayor proposal . Gheez.

Rhonda Erwin 2009-09-17T04:10:16Z William Burg 2009-09-17T03:29:56Z 2009-09-17T03:29:56Z

Kevin Johnson didn't write the "strong mayor" initiative, nor was he involved in its writing.

William Burg 2009-09-17T03:29:56Z William Burg 2009-09-17T03:29:33Z 2009-09-17T03:29:33Z

The difference is that the "strong mayor" initiative causes significant changes to the way the city government runs, rather than the comparatively minor matter of same-gender marriage. If the same-gender marriage bill gave the Governor vast veto powers over the Legislature, made him a voting member of the Legislature until an unspecified future point, and deleted language from the state constitution regarding who authorizes the state to enter into contracts and deal with legal challenges against the state, you can bet it would count as a revision at the state level.

William Burg 2009-09-17T03:29:33Z Rhys02 2009-09-17T02:18:14Z 2009-09-17T02:18:14Z

and Kevin Johnson is not a person of color??? God!!! the racist that sit on the council are just unbelievable !!! The make the Republicans look like progressive...

Rhys02 2009-09-17T02:18:14Z Tony Sheppard 2009-09-17T01:55:05Z 2009-09-17T01:55:05Z

The revision versus amendment distinction didn't work for same-gender marriage.

Tony Sheppard 2009-09-17T01:55:05Z William Burg 2009-09-16T20:55:06Z 2009-09-16T20:55:06Z

The "strong mayor" proponents made their bed--now they will have to lay in it. It sounds like the proposal will be wide open for lawsuits due to its gaping legal holes. In addition to the fact that it is such a drastic revision that it goes beyond what can be changed through the initiative process, its built-in contradictions (like its failure to outline when the 9th district will be created, which results in a "strong mayor" who also votes on the Council and can vote against their efforts to override his decisions) and just plain omissions (language regarding who handles city contracts and deals with legal issues is just plain omitted from the charter, making it unclear who is responsible for handling those rather important issues) mean that the "strong mayor" initiative will be an immediate failure even if it passes--and result in a gigantic mess that will screw things up tremendously just when city government lacks the staff and resources to deal with it. That's when the offers for a "cut & gut" audit pops back up onto the radar...

William Burg 2009-09-16T20:55:06Z TomRunge 2009-09-16T19:37:53Z 2009-09-16T19:37:53Z

I'm sure the charter commission--with it's land use attorneys, lily white political hacks, and members who have already stated their opposition to granting the Mayor greater powers--can come up with something that reflects the diversity of opinions in Sacramento.

TomRunge 2009-09-16T19:37:53Z William Burg 2009-09-16T18:19:44Z 2009-09-16T18:19:44Z

If people have the opportunity to hear the truth, those "People of all colors, genders, shapes and sizes" will turn down this power grab. If developers and anti-democratic special interests continue pouring money over it, it will slide through and Sacramento will suffer.

William Burg 2009-09-16T18:19:44Z Devin Lavelle 2009-09-16T18:00:48Z 2009-09-16T18:00:48Z

This initiative was written by Tom Hiltachk -- an ultra conservative attorney that represents big tobacco and anti-worker causes -- not exactly representative of Sacramento.

Devin Lavelle 2009-09-16T18:00:48Z Ronald West 2009-09-16T16:58:45Z 2009-09-16T16:58:45Z

People of all colors, genders, shapes and sizes will have the opportunity to offer their input on June 8, 2010.

Ronald West 2009-09-16T16:58:45Z William Burg 2009-09-16T16:14:41Z 2009-09-16T16:14:41Z

So Karl, I mean Steve, are you suggesting that there was public input into the language of the Strong Mayor initiative? Or by "drawn" do you just mean people's signatures on the petition? Is the public's input into city government decisions limited to their approval of plans drawn up by their "betters"? How would you characterize Tom Hiltachk and the major financial backers of the Strong Mayor Initiative in terms of how "reflective of our city's diversity" they are?

William Burg 2009-09-16T16:14:41Z Steven Maviglio 2009-09-16T15:34:08Z 2009-09-16T15:34:08Z

Ms. Pannell's comments are interesting. Citizen initiatives are drawn by, uh, citizens. If Ms. Pannell is concerned about diversity, she ought to look at the Charter Commission that she favored and voted for. Not exactly reflective of our city's diversity.

Steven Maviglio 2009-09-16T15:34:08Z