Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Strong-mayor idea scoffed at town hall
by Ali Tabatabai, published on October 6, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Storyline: City News
Participants at last night’s town hall meeting on the city charter expressed their skepticism about Mayor Kevin Johnson’s strong-mayor initiative and raised questions about the mayor’s potential voting power if the initiative passed.
During the discussion portion of the meeting, members of the Charter Review Committee confirmed with the audience that if the strong-mayor initiative were to pass, it would immediately create a 9th District whose council seat would be held by the mayor, until a new councilmember could be voted in, in 2012. The mayor would continue to get one council vote, in addition to executive powers including the power to veto and ability to appoint the city manager.
“That’s like a hulk mayor, it’s more than strong,” said Constance Slider, one of the night’s most vocal participants.
Slider, a lifetime Sacramento resident and director for a policy advocacy group, said she had concerns about the current mayor attempting to “change the system in mid-stream and co-opting the office.”
“You don’t need to change what’s not broken,” she said
Slider added, “We need to explore the cost in potential litigation [of the strong-mayor initiative], and as a tax-payer I’m not prepared to bear the burden of that.”
About 30 community members from around the district six area gathered at Tahoe Park Elementary School to hear the Charter Review Committee explain the differences between the strong-mayor initiative, and committee’s alternative charter amendment recommendations to be delivered to the city council next month.
Most of the committee’s tentative recommendations would leave the current charter intact, but would amend it to allow the mayor to appoint the city manager upon confirmation by the city council.
“Some people say this is a modest proposal,” committee member Alan LoFaso said of the tentative recommendations, “But small changes have significant impact on what the roles of the city’s government members will be.”
LoFaso, who helped guide the evening’s town hall meeting, said the public is just starting to become engaged in the details of the proposals.
“We need more time to get involved in the changes we need,” LoFaso said. “There’s nothing inherently wrong with Sacramento city government that creates a crisis; we’re in the realm of small improvements.”
Originally, the charter committee had until late January 2010 to present its recommendations to the council, but the deadline was moved ahead to allow the council more time to make a final decision on how to react to the mayor-backed initiative.
Committee members directly asked the town hall attendees whether they thought the council should place a competing charter amendment on the June 2010 ballot, or spend the majority of their efforts trying to defeat the initiative through other means.
One alternative recommended in the discussion was to create ballot measure that would establish a charter commission to explore what amendments would best suit the short and long-term needs of Sacramento.
Only one town hall attendee spoke up in favor of the mayor’s proposal last evening.
Brian Salazar, a state worker and 20-year resident of Sacramento, said he believes the current system doesn’t match the needs of the city.
“I think the city council has too much power and is ineffective,” said Salazar. He added he would like to see changes made to K Street, the downtown mall, and the revitalization of the arena plan.
“The city needs to try it out for a generation,” Salazar said. “If it’s a complete disaster, [the charter] could be changed back.”
The charter review committee has more town halls and meetings planned throughout the month. More information on the meetings and amendment recommendations can be found at www.cityofsacramento.org/charter
According to the charter committee’s presentation, over 11 hours of testimony have been gathered at town halls and from academics and other government organizations.
The mayor also has an open town hall website hosted by the Sacramento Bee.
A call put in to the mayor’s office for comment was not returned in time for the posting of this article, but will be included in the comments section below when returned.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/14249/Charter_meeting_Strong_mayor_hiring_powers_discussed
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/14147/Public_invited_to_Charter_Committee_town_hall_meetings
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/14002/Strong_mayor_friends_foes_react_to_committees_report
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/13833/Committee_supports_current_councilmanager_system
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/13784/Council_unlikely_to_address_strong_mayor_issues_raised_by_city_attorney
These sessions are designed to educate citizens about the charter commission's proposals to change the city charter, not to approve or "reject" them nor any other proposal that might be on the June 2010 ballot.
You are right to say that "these sessions are designed to educate citizens about the charter commission's proposals to change the city charter," and the committee nor the attendees FORMALLY approved or rejected them.
Having been in the room for the meeting's entirety, I stand behind my reporting that the majority town hall attendees, and the most vocal ones out of that, were openly skeptical and at-times derisive about the stron-mayor initiative. However it was unclear if there were any concensus on alternative proposals.
Only one person spoke up in favor of the initiative and then left early followed by a small handful of other attendees who's positions were unclear.
Subtle distinctions in language can make a huge difference. Thanks for your comment, it's helps to clarify!
Did I miss something? When did the Charter Review Committee become a taxpayer funded political operation? This sham committee either needs to be disbanded or the committee members should be tossed into jail.
The Charter Commission had an opportunity to move Sacramento forward and recommend significant changes in our city's governance, much like nearly every other city in California the size of Sacramento.
Instead, it punted.
From this article, it now appears the Charter Committee is acknowledging its own failure and wants to become a taxpayer-financed attack dog. Sad, indeed.
Now there's a great idea--we'll just screw up our city for the next 20 years, then try to pick through the wreckage! Priceless.
The Charter Review Committee was set up to listen to ALL residents opinions. It appears that the Committee members share your disdain for any input that doesn't conform to it's plans. What's shocking--and illegal--is that the Committee members now see that it's their job to work to actively defeat the Strong Mayor Proposal. It is illegal to use taxpayer funds to campaign for candidates or issues. This group needs to be held to account.
As for "world class city" ... I happen to love living in Sacramento. But I know it has the potential to be an even greater city. And so do the overwhelming majority of folks who live here.
Any questions, concerns, story ideas can also be emailed to me at: alirezareports@gmail.com
Thanks.
Record deficits have one helluva lot more to do with eight years of abysmal fiscal management at the federal level than they do with the reaction by nearly ALL state and local governments across the nation TO that abysmal management and the economic downturn it caused. To assert this is simply ridiculous or just plain stupid...
The city is 'audited' CONSTANTLY. We have TOP NOTCH PROFESSIONAL staff in both legal and financial disciplines reviewing financial, legal and operational performance at every moment. That's their role, and despite these economic tough times, and the mindless accusations of those seeking authority they do not merit nor have a past that indicates their own capacity to manage, our city staff performs above and beyond any expectations.
I do think we might benefit from an analysis of optimal performance from more PROGRESSIVE eyes than those proposed by this mayor, whose ties to the 'auditors' (with pre-determined outcomes sought by that mayor) he proposed were easily uncovered and discredited. But I believe this role should be taken on with the consent of council, and not at the mayor's dictates, for he himself, and the organizations he is/was responsible for, could not even come close to sustaining the verdict of a competent auditor...
If 'vision' includes selling our town out to backroom deals and corruption, I want no part of it. That has been the nature of KJ's 'vision', using Orwellian doublespeak to gussy up some pretty ominous proposals, such as this Nestle water repacking scheme, his efforts to stymie any opposition by relegating even elected officials to the back of the bus committee assignments, all while painting a pretty picture with 'Sacramento as a world class city' rhetoric. While it would be nice to incorporate 'world class' ideas into our infrastructure and built environment, oddly enough KJ was brought into being by interests that have consistently sought to stifle such creativity and innovation, including the developers that aided SAG and its tribe of suckups, sycophants, and now, siblings... This is only 'world class' if one seeks to turn Sacramento into a banana republic, or worse, to turn the clock back to 1984...
Finally, 'accountability'... It's easy pickens for simple minds to charge a lack of 'accountability' when they themselves have skirted by legal and financial offense so seemingly easily. What kind of 'accountability' has KJ faced??? Allegations of child sexual abuse appear to reasonably prudent minds to be swept under a very dirty rug by payoffs and protection connections. His past organizations are barely operational and losing ground as we speak, weakened by an insidious oversight that cling's to the poor oversight of its past, even to the point of possibly obstructing any REAL regulatory oversight, and his public pronouncements only seem calculated to continue to make these matters more obtuse, through diverting public attention toward some bright shiny object that keeps his past dark. This is hardly an 'accountable' individual.
I would suggest that those who make such statements as did Mr. Maviglio on behalf of his boss-mayor, to consider their conscience when doing so, for reinforcing a 'big lie' foisted on locals of modest means but good intentions, is a sin... And in Dante's 'Inferno' there is a special place for those who perpetuate such deceits.
The city does NOT have constant audits. Previous articles here on Sacramento Press indicated that the city's internal auditing is minimal, and that the council had rejected Mayor Johnson's suggestion of external audits that would be paid for with cost savings.
Municipal deficits in Sacramento have absolutely nothing to do with federal deficits. Over the past few years, the City of Fresno (similar size, same valley) had a SURPLUS while the City Council led by Mayor Fargo piled up massive budget deficits here in Sacramento. And, by the way, Fresno has a strong mayor/council form of government.
Now tell me -- which has had more public participation?
The Fresno strong mayor proposal has proven successful -- no deficits while Sacramento and your business-as-usual allies on the Sac City Council piled up millions in red ink. There have been NO attempts to repeal the system in Fresno.
And how dare you insult my intelligence or underestimate my intelligence. I ASKED MANY of those PAID signature gatherers WHAT THE Strong Mayor Proposal was about and NOT ONE could give me a direct answer....Heck they didn't even know what they were gathering signatures for - so much for transparency. I'm not buying the bull you are selling. I've IGNORANTLY signed petitions in the past, but not this one, and WILL NEVER DO SO AGAIN-- just to help the PAID signature collector earn a buck. I know times are hard. Sometimes I did so to escape the STRONG ARM tactics of an overzealous signature collector. AND I DID NOT VOTE for it when it reached the ballot.
Which had more more participation? If you have 100 people attending an event in the dark, not knowlegable on the agenda and 5 knowledgable, understanding of the agenda and not in the dark- Then the 5 would have more public participation. Participation is actually knowing, participating in the agenda... So the ONE HELD IN TRANSPARENCY- WHERE PEOPLE ARE FULLY AWARE WHAT AND WHY THEY ARE MEETING. (SIGNING) is the one with more public participation. You have lots of nerves and I really have grown exhausted with your deceit. You are not an ignorant man SO WHY are you giving ignorant responses? You can't honestly believe the people on this site are falling for this mess.
The Fresno strong mayor proposal has proven successful FOR WHO? The mayor? If I wanted to (and honestly) I could make a call to Fresno and have some folks HERE AT CITY HALL who could prove their are many community members who don't see it as successful. You really don't want to play with me. You are TALKING ABOUT FRESNO-- Do you know how many underprivilged residents are fighting so MANY BATTLES of poverty in FRESNO? DO YOU KNOW what's it's like to have to fight so many battles that you don't wake up with a privilged "things to do list" but a 'BATTLES TO FIGHT" LIST. Oh, the Nation Action Network and MANY MANY others attempt to repeal the SYSTEM of neglect, poverty, homelessness, labeling youth as terrorists, heck in FRESNO a homeless woman WHO won her law suit is believed to be THROWN off a building. Don't judge a book by its cover. I've spoken at events in Fresno, Oakland met with activists from San Jose, LA, San Diego... meeting people from all over California. Attending Justice and Peace rallies, summits, workshops, journey for justice, caravan for justice... meeting folks from all over. Heck I was on a radio station in Fresno where many people called in upset regarding the Mayor... You know, I forgot talking to you is a waste of my time and energy. You have a good day.