Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Committee supports current council/manager system
by Kathleen Haley, published on September 17, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
Loading images
The city’s Charter Review Committee has released its draft recommendations on the “strong mayor” issue. It suggests that the city maintain its current council/manager form of government.
Read the committee’s draft recommendations here.
The committee’s draft recommends that the mayor should continue to serve as a voting member of the City Council. The mayor would not have the ability to veto the City Council’s decisions, according to the draft report. “The separation of an executive mayor tends to diminish the authority that is very clear in the City Council and the unified accountability in a parliamentary system (unified executive and legislative branches) is highly desirable,” the committee’s report states.
However, the committee recommends changing the process for how the city manager is hired. The committee suggests that the mayor would appoint the city manager. A majority of the City Council would need to approve the mayor’s candidate for city manager.
Right now, the City Council appoints the city manager.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Click for larger version
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
While the fashion industry may re-invent old styles into the newest rage...constitutional change is evolutionary, not regressive.
The public process of the city council sanctioned Charter Review Commission appears to be presenting an evolutionary transition to a government structure that gives the mayor more authority and maintaining critical checks & balances within that structure, not the least of which is maintaining the independence of Charter Officer positions from serving at the pleasure of one single politician.
The Hiltachk/Johnson BOSS proposal is regressive…a proposal concocted in the form of mid 19th and early 20th century BOSS MAYORAL civic government. It’s crafting done in “back room” dealings of a high rise law office on Capitol Mall- Funded primarily by out of city real estate interest-out of view or involvement of those who will be affected by it.
History gives us a rear-view mirror. For a mayoral administration so concerned about giving our children a competitive foundation in education, how do you explain the proponents disregard for one of history’s greatest lessons?
“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeating it!”
The Hiltachk/Johnson BOSS MAYOR Proposal is as corrupting as anything Tammany Hall’s William M. “BOSS” Tweed could have conceived.
Progressive evolution over regressive authoritarian rule for Sacramento!
There is a great deal of wisdom in Sacramento city governance as it currently stands, and it is the reason this city has NEVER EVER suffered a major corruption catastrophe and the notoriety stemming from it. Our city governance is a distributed democracy, with authority held pretty much equivalently by elected representatives who are very much tied to their constituencies, rather than a sole source whose constituencies are the elite, or elite wannabes.
It is to the Charter Review Committee's credit that they have wisely stepped back KJ's drive for more and more and more authority at the hands of a well heeled few, and it is a testament to our local democracy that more and more Sacramentans are becoming aware just how insidious the SMI's intentions, coupled with near fatally flawed drafting of their measure, truly are.
My hope in a unified informed local citizenry is, at least for the time being, reassured -- though I'm sure the SAG/KJ efforts will be gearing up for a good fight, pretty much using smoke and mirrors to prettify their very corrupt measure for public consumption, just as the GOP is doing against health care these days...
I hold out hope that five votes of the City Council will still consider removing this measure from the ballot now that the measure's legal and constitutional exposures, potentially costing the city MILLIONS of dollars we do not have, should this ill-conceived and very un-democratic SMI measure pass, if it remains on the June 2010 ballot.
But for now, I couldn't be happier at the Charter Review Committee's first draft report -- it is a study in good government and integrity... and we owe them a GREAT debt of gratitude...
The mayor's spokesperson, either demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the current charter and his failure to read and/or comprehend the proposed changes to the selection, hiring and firing of the city manager or does what he does best...distorts and confuses!
Current Charter " There shall be a city manager who shall be appointed by the city council. The city manager shall be selected solely on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications. The city manager shall be appointed by and shall serve at the pleasure of the city council."
The proposal stipulates that the mayor appoint the CM, subject to 5 votes of the remaining 8 council members. Since the Mayor selects the candidate for the position, he/she does not participate in the confirmation vote.
Point of importance: The rules by which the Commission operate stipulate that there must be 7 affirmative votes by commission members, for each recommendation to proceed to the final report. The current status of this recommendation is 6 Yes votes, 3 No votes, 1 abstained and 1 was not present.
Reason for copying and Steve's comment...edit function.
PS Steve...so many individuals have called you & your proponents on the misuse of that 50,000 + number. You seem to keep forgetting that correction factor of about 16,000 signatures being labeled invalid by the county registrar's office...an ethical person would acknowledge the fact and move forwarding respecting that decision.
The Charter Commission proposal requires six votes to hire a City Manager. The current charter requires five. Period.
btw Lauren good luck with the try at the Assembly...how many times have you run for that post??
If there was no charter commission, the choices would be KJ's proposal or the status quo. After less than a year with KJ at the helm, there is no status quo anymore, but even that is better than the legal quagmire that the Strong Mayor initiative clearly represents.
Mr. Burg, you continue to fail to provide ANY shred of evidence about a "legal quagmire" the initiative would provide. The City Attorney has failed to do so, and her arguments were soundly rejected by the FPPC. Maybe you could enlighten us with some case law.
Also, I believe Hammond has not run for the Assembly seat before, though she will no doubt lose this time to Kevin McCarty, who has the tacit backing of three prior incumbents and no doubt the Democratic Party, especially after Hammond's recent support of Johnson's SMI.
Kevin McCarty has NOT been endorsed by Senator Steinberg or Assemblymember Jones at this juncture.
The one you support is most extreme, giving the mayor more unchecked power than any other.
Even if the Committee recommends a structural change to the City Charter and governance at City Hall, the vote on WHO a proposed strong mayor would be should be separate.
Just because Kevin and Co. began this power grab their first five minutes in office (according to Mr. Hiltachk) does not mean that Sacramento voted for a Strong Mayor or voted for Kevin to be it.
Excellent point Marion Millian "Just because Kevin and Co. began this power grab their first five minutes in office (according to Mr. Hiltachk) does not mean that Sacramento voted for a Strong Mayor or voted for Kevin to be it."--- EXCELLENT point- CHEERS
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. " Thomas Jefferson
The beauty of it is that if someone is corrupt or doing a bad job, you can hold them accountable for it. Under the current city manager system, you can't. A city manager is not accountable to voters. Under Sacramento's system, the City Manager isn't even accountable to the majority of the City Council (6 votes required to fire).
The proposal does NOTHING that makes power "more beholden to development interests." That has everything to do with who the Mayor is, not with the system. And again, if voters think that's the case, then they can hold a Mayor accountable for that.
The "reforms" proposed by the commission are, sadly, window dressing. The commission had a real opportunity to step up and modernize city government. Unfortunately their recommendations are business as usual. In some cases, they make city government more bureaucratic; it will now take SIX votes to hire a city manager instead of five under the current system.
They are not the same and you know it. Each one is individual to their community. They are all structured quite differently. And none of them give the mayor as much power as Johnson's SMI.
The public is not stupid. The details are important. The differences cannot be brushed off.
Cheers,
Kathleen
Any strategic planner ALWAYS leaves open the option of doing nothing when doing nothing is most effective. There is no pressing need to change what works about our city's governance, particularly when this distributed democratic structure avoids corruption meltdowns and secretive backroom deals as have been legend in other cities who haven't the wisdom built into our city's charter. The fugue of interests at play and the covert nature of this measure's origins in this local melodrama should be evidence enough of why this measure would not yield material public benefit.
Students of constitutional evolution also know that 'change' for change's sake, or for the handful of people who have materially supported the SMI, no doubt with the intent of benefitting it -- these guys aren't altruistic by any stretch of the imagination or fact -- is NOT a rationale for attributing pie-in-the-sky benefit to this particular measure, especially given its origins in the offices of Mr. Hiltchak, representing the thinly veiled interests of said backers, who are probably not as interested in the noble pursuit of good governance as they are a quicker means to manipulate city largesse to their own benefit.
You wrote: "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"
And Maviglio responded: "Agreed"
The legal expert: Teichert has given her expert opinion and hopefully the city counsil will consider the recommendations from the city charter committee and proceed accordingly--- Just as you previously suggested and as Maviglio agreed to.
You are taking shots at a public panel of 10 individuals appointed by our city council representatives, while you want to give more power to the 1 individual that you work for.
The balanced democratic process of the council has been endorsed in this announcement. The community does not want to regress to the Boss style of local governance. Going backwards is not "modernizing."
The system of government you criticize is the same one most Sacramento cities our size have, and most American cites our size have. Fresno, San Diego, and Oakland all have moved away from city manager to strong mayor/council. The reason? So their elected officials can be responsive and get things done.
Spewing slogans is not convincing, especially when they are irrelevant and used to deflect -- as usual -- from the issue.
Please us the correct number of estimated valid signatures.
Please stop claiming the system other cities have "is the same."
She also actively campaigned against Mayor Johnson.
The quality of public service has nothing to population numbers. Population numbers have nothing to do with "growing up." The SMI would put Sacramento back in the 19th Century.
City manager form of government was put into place in the 1920s. Most cities have moved away from it in the 21st century.
Their are fisherman on the site, their are gardeners on the site and their are snakes in some gardens and sharks in some oceans of deceit (take your pick Maviglio haven't quite figured out yet if you write from the stand point of a snake or a shark. I've moved past big bad wolf and sly fox- lol)
I don't see changes in the proposal set before us. I've learned status quo has become, once again, a special interest greed-led corruption based form of government with special interest pirates masguerading as politicans and lobbyist. and spokesperson for polticans The status quo has been to blindly allow politicans to say we need this 'because I say so, it's progress" FYI, Progress is not going backwards. We are where we are now not because sacramento has become a big city but because as fifthgeneration (a gardener) said best, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeating it!”. Seems, the government minds of yesterday who put in place the current mayor system-- who were more than developers and special interest folks, who didn't have so many hidden agenda's -- looked to the future where pirates would eventually take over every form of government once again. King Johnson appears to want to rule the city. I am not against change . I'm against the same ol crap we've been getting since our constitution, our local, state, federal government was hijacked by special interest, developer, corporation pirates. You may get some to believe Sac will be Mayberry and without the strong mayor proposal we'll be living in the past televised in black and white but I'll take that over the obvious colors of deceit, greed and special interest ANY DAY. Many of us know the difference between window dressing an initiative as progress and true progress. King Johnson can't say "It's Progress" without showing us the progress of it. Outside of 1) times have changed 2) population has grown, 3) we're a big city . IF this is change will you ask our MAYOR to tell us, specifically what can he do as Mayor under a strong mayor form of government that he can not do under the current one? SPECIFICALLY and hopefully something better than the "fix potholes" that was on the SAG literature I received when the SMP was first introduced to the public. Or is this when the station becomes mute, no more color or sound?.and you no longer can speak for the Mayor?
I became interested in this particular "deceit" storyline, when I was invited to the Sesquicentennial Celebration of my high school alma mater. It was 2007, celebrating the 150th Year of a historic high school (Second Oldest West of the Mississippi) that had been closed 3 years before.
How can Sacramento and the SCUSD have a Sesquicentennial Celebrattion for a school that doesn't exist any more? They closed the public school and gave it away to Kevin Johnson's charter franchise, St. HOPE.
How can they? One way is to Pretend It Still Exists. Pretend it is still "Sac High" and collude with the media to fool the public into not knowing that Sacramento Charter High School is not Sacramento High School. St. HOPE is not "Sac HIgh."
This hoax is also important to the political aspirations of the King of St. HOPE, one Mr. Kevin "They're Only Allegations" Johnson. The deceit storyline continues to this day, utilizing skills such as Mr. Maviglio excels at.
We have whole town with lost of Kool Aid drinkers, who don't wonder why all the city neighborhoods north of Broadway, don't have a comprehensive high school, owed to them by the SCUSD under court order, in a lawsuit they LOST for giving Johnson the high school prematurely and illegally.
If the public put down the Kool Aid and smelled the toxic meatcicle, they might think "That stinks!!"
They might wonder "How can Kevin Johnson claim to care about the education of Sacramento students when his charter is underperforming and under Federal investigation; while thousands of students in half the neighborhoods within the city limits don't have their rightful, local public high school yet? ARE THOSE THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS AND FAMILIES SUPPOSED TO DISAPPEAR INTO THE ETHER SO THAT KEVIN CAN BE THE "EDUCATION MAYOR" OF SACRAMENTO? This despite the fact that public education in Sacramento is not in the Mayor's job description. This despite the fact all of those families still owed THEIR high school, are still paying taxes for Kevin Johnson's.
As others have pointed out on SacPress, the privatization of the schools, the push to drain resources from the public school system and replace public schools with charter schools AND the Strong Mayor system are all part of the same con -- I mean, controversial package. There are big bucks involved. It's happening nationwide. It's also dependent on deceitful language.
It's dependent on not enough people like you, Rhonda, to pull the wool back and ask those good questions.
What did you say about "Don't get me started?"
Thanks, dear Rhonda. Keep up the good work.
fifthgen replied: "The mayor's spokesperson, either demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the current charter and his failure to read and/or comprehend the proposed changes to the selection, hiring and firing of the city manager or does what he does best...distorts and confuses!"
Sorry fifthgen, but Mr. Maviglio is right. Apparently you are lacking in math skills or so passionate about this issue you can't concede a point to an adversary. I'm just an observer from afar and don't really care one way or the other about the Sacramento mayor's powers, but at least I'd like to read honest arguments. Right now it takes the support of five council members to appoint a city manager. Under the commission's proposal it will take six -- the mayor and five voting council members. Under the commission's proposal, four council members can block an appointment, which is not the case now. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying Maviglio's right on this one and you are wrong.
Would you say the Mayor’s spokesperson did the same?
How many votes under the SMI?
Do you have the language of the SMI to make a comparison? Was it provided by the mayor’s spokesperson?
You would read that the city manager would be “appointed by the Mayor-subject to the concurrence of the majority of city council.”
So how many votes is that? What about the currently non-existent 9th council district vote that under the SMI, that vote belongs to the Mayor until established?
Does Mayoral appointment authority still equal 1 vote in this equation? Does the Mayor get to appoint and vote for his appointment until a 9th council district is created? If not, a majority of the 8 remaining CC members would be 5 and using yours and Steve’s appointment =’s 1 vote… would still be 6…If the mayor is the sole appointer and still gets a vote…appointing authority and a vote…I guess you would say in that case appointment does not equal 1 vote? Can you have it both ways?
A public process did not create the SMI language.
The charter commission is a public process. The current charter and the charter commission’s proposal are clear regarding this issue. Is the SMI?
BTW-That is not my thumbs down on your comment and I'm impressed your paying attention to this history in the making...living outside the city.
And yes, the initiative IS a public process. When tens of thousands of citizens sign a citizen petition, that's a public process.
Compare that to the 10 folks who attend the commission meetings, most of whom are special interests.
And it was me who put the thumbs down because I read it and I felt anyone who is " just an observer from afar and doesn't really care one way or the other about the Sacramento mayor's powers..." and would sarcastically write "Apparently you are lacking in math skills" knowing full well-by reading your posts (heck I need a dictionary to follow) you are educated and not lacking in math skills. Anyone can tell by previous posts you've written that you aren't attempting to deceive so I figured this person could be (or perhaps not) up to something. I know I carry a sarcastic tone but I admit I am not just an observer and I do care one way or another. I don't care if the person points out Maviglio is right and someone else is wrong and I'd preferred it was written "Maviglio is right and you are wrong on this one" otherwise, writing Maviglio's right on this one and you are wrong sends the message that you (and other posts you've written) could be wrong more often than Maviglio. Kind of like a play on words. trickery - But I don't think it was intended to be but I'm trying to learn and I want clean clear air...nothing blocking my view. Their is so much fog (deceit) in the city of trees, blocking, obstructing the view of so many city residents. The way it's written can send a false message, considering Maviglio has been wrong more often and you have yet to be wrong. So, it wasn't personal I put the thumbs down- it was business. But glad you explained the above I'm beginning to get the picture of how this works.
Honey, YOUR guy equivocated about his philanderings with underage girls -- Rudin, Ortiz, et al. only sought the TRUTH about the handling, or MIShandling, of the allegations of the St. Hope student in Sacramento, which was further investigated by the IG, and because of obstruction allegations, is now under investigation by the FBI...
The law may be one thing, but the standards of a reasonably prudent person is another...
YOUR GUY LIED, and hopefully, if there is any justice left at the Justice Department, the FBI's investigation will unearth the evidence of just how criminally culpable KEVIN JOHNSON really is -- the truth ALWAYS will out, especially for a pompous pretender like KJ... He hasn't one SCINTILLA of the honor and integrity that Anne Rudin has, and that you continue to LIE about these situations, just to make a buck, is a disgrace! How pathetic your life must be to be so hungry as to stoop so low...
You made lots of responses BUT, you forgot one --the same ONE you always seem, and it appears intentionally, to leave out. . IS their a problem? Cat seems to always get your tongue on this one. WHAT CAN MAYOR JOHNSON DO --SPECIFICALLY-- WITH A Srong Mayor Proposal for the public- that HE CAN'T do under the current form of government? An example please- other than the pothole scenerio given in the SAG literature.
I don't care nor value anything else you write, you can play on this board all you want but I'm not playing with you I'm looking at your statements and deceit I'm not trying to have an ongoing discussion with you any longer.. If you won't answer. Again, you are dismissed
SM is big on "Fresno, San Diego, and Oakland all have moved away from city manager to strong mayor/council. The reason? So their elected officials can be responsive and get things done."
Where is the information on what "things" Kevin wants to "get done"? What are they? Why can't he "be responsive and get things done" now? Why can't mayor Johnson be "accountable" now?
SM does his best to hide the fact that Johnson's proposed SMI would give him more power and fewer checks and balances than in any of the other cities Strong Mayor structures -- which SM falsely claims are "all the same."
I learned from Mayor Johnson to KEEP my eye on the prize. His eye is on the SMP my eye is on WHAT CAN THE Strong Mayor Proposal DO FOR US.? Maviglio can feed us all the misinformation he wants but I'm not chewing that crap. I'm hungry for truth. I don't want any more of the contaminated meat Maviglio keeps thawing out, not preparing, freezing it again to later attempt to serve to the public. I'm glad to be on this site. You and so many others cause me to think and I thank you!
With that, it is nice to see such a diverse group on the committee. It looks like they are taking their task seriously and are putting the necessary research into their findings. Let's hope the council and others involved take their recommendations to heart.
Go Dragons!