Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Charter Review Committee hold Town Hall Meeting
by Nallelie Vega, published on September 25, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Storyline: Event Coverage
Sacramento residents voiced their opinions to Charter Review Committee members about the strong-mayor proposal during a Town Hall Meeting in Ben Ali Shrine Temple Thursday evening.
Committee members attentively listened to the responses of the community regarding the possible changes to the mayor position in Sacramento.
“Some people, when they know they can serve forever, handle their position just a little differently, ”Natomas resident said Fran Barker.
Barker expressed her concern regarding no limitation to number of terms city councilmembers can serve. She said she feels there should be terms limits for both the mayor and councilmembers because "often times absolute power corrupts absolutely."
“I believe that term limits increases our level of conscientiousness and integrity," she said.]
Sacramento’s governing body holds nine voting positions: eight elected city councilmembers and the mayor. With the strong-mayor proposition, the mayor would not be a member of the city council.
The councilmember positions are part-time jobs, and the mayor's position was turned full-time in 2002, and all positions have terms of four years, but the amount of terms they can serve is unlimited, according to city law.
Charter Review Committee member Cecily Hastings said during their first Town Hall Meeting many residents expressed concerns about the lack of term limits.
“A comment a couple of people made was, people get in these offices and you can’t take them out, because they fund-raise continually,and they build up such a war chest that nobody can take them on," she said.
Other members of the community had different opinions.
“The problem with term limits is like in the state: They're not working,” said Natomas resident Chuck O’Neil. “They’re too short. By the time they figure out what they’re doing, they're termed out and then have to move on.”
O’Neil said he is aware that state terms are two years, but he still feels that four years is not enough time for legislators to make a difference. He said he believes that if a councilmember is doing a good job and their popularity is still up, they should be allowed to continue serving the public.
Regarding fundraising regulations for candidates, O’Neil said he feels that a few things need to be changed to make it easier for others to run.
“One of the problems with letting people stay in there too long is that the lobbyist gives them too much money, and they have a lot of support and they’ll stay forever,” O’Neil said. “So if you can solve that problem, so challengers can also get money, you got a chance of turning those people over when they’re not doing their job.”
The Charter Review Committee has composed a recommendation for the City Council, and is holding Town Hall Meetings to get public feedback. In their recommendations, the majority of the committee voted to have no term limits.
Hastings, along with committee members JoAnn Fuller and Alan LoFaso, encouraged the public to voice all opinions to the committee regarding their proposal about the city's governmental body.
“We really want to hear from you; we want to hear from your neighbors," Fuller said. “If you hear people talking about this, we want to hear it, too.”
The Charter Review Committee was established by the City Council in April to review the strong-mayor proposal as well as other changes to the local governing body. The City Council voted to create the committee in February to help advise and compose a report with public opinion about the changes to the governing system. All members of the committee are volunteers.
Calls for applications to join the committee were posted on city websites until the end of March, when each individual councilmember appointed a member to the Charter Review Committee. Two of those positions were voted on at large.
The committee has 11 members, all from various careers, according to Hastings. They are due to make their final recommendation to the City Council in November.
“They’re doing a good job,” said former Sacramento mayor Anne Rudin, who served terms from 1983 to 1992. “They’ve had expert testimony of people who have been in those jobs, and they’ve gathered up a lot of information before they made their decisions about what they felt was right for Sacramento.”
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I think it would be a great idea to have a small section of upcoming Public Meetings, Town Hall discussions and etc... I have no real Idea where to look for these things. And while I have interest, I well never remember to look for where these things are actually listed.
http://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=8
Charter review committee meeting information can be found here:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/
I encourage you to bookmark them and check them once in a while. You can even watch City Council meetings on cable TV, but visiting in person is also interesting. It's just like any other drama, if you watch for a while you start to recognize the characters and pick up on the storyline. But it's a bit more interesting, because they're talking about places you know from firsthand experience.
I might add that the most valuable lesson for anyone in Sacramento or any town, visiting the Capitol or City Hall or any meeting is, these are people, just like anyone else. The political theater only makes that more apparent.
That can only be conveyed in person. The TV adds another layer of separation.
Start withhttp://www..cityofsacramento.org/charter
and sign up to be on the notification list (there may be a link or you may need to find it....)
Unless of course you're wearing a $5,OOO.OO suit and drop ten grand per council member...
then they MIGHT listen to what you have to say...
Your statement, and the cynicism it represents, is largely untrue and misplaced.
While I have donated to the campaigns for some local elected officials before, it is by no means on a large scale, with very few exceptions. But before at least four of the members of the current City Council, i feel very much listened to, and that my input is regarded significantly, so long as that input is to the benefit of the community and not merely my own self interest.
That being said, I believe the cabal that surrounds the mayor is indeed merely self interested, and through the SMI seeks to self-deal through a silencing of the widest possible array of voices and input into issues under consideration. I believe under this narrow circumstance your statement is indeed true, for I don't believe this mayor makes a single move without the sanction of his backers, who have put up significant sums to be 'heard'.
I believe the four Council members who remain opposed to this measure do so risking future political benefit if that benefit is financed by KJ's backers, and it is to their credit that they remain strong and vital voices for the many whose opposition to the SMI and other of KJ's 'initiatives' are as yet unorganized and ununified, but with any luck, will be soon...
Btw, I doubt Tom Hiltchak's suits cost anywhere near $5k.... He looks pretty rumpled, and his street cred as a lobbyist has been no doubt harmed by his sloppy errors and omissions in drafting the SMI... much to the benefit of us all...