Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Charter Committee meeting provides constructive forum to answer citizen's questions
by Esther Hodapp, published on October 8, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Storyline: Sacramento Politics
Twelve Sacramentans who attended Wednesday's Charter Review Committee town hall meeting at San Brannan Middle School did not come to debate the "strong mayor" initiative. They said they wanted to have their questions answered so they could better understand the proposed changes to Sacramento's mayoral authority.
Committee member JoAnn Fuller led the meeting and presented an overview of the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee. Each attendee was provided a handout describing the eight tentative recommendations with illustrations that depicted Sacramento's current system of mayoral authority and how the system would change under the strong mayor initiative and under the recommendations from the committee.
"These are all tentative decisions," Fuller said. "We are ready to listen. We want your opinions and will answer your questions."
The primary question of the evening revolved around the appointment and removal process of the city manager. Currently, the City Council, which consists of eight members and the mayor, needs a two-thirds majority vote to appoint or remove the city manager. Under the strong mayor initiative, the mayor would appoint the city manager, which would require confirmation by the City Council. However, removal of the city manager would be a decision made solely by the mayor. The Charter Review Committee has recommended that the appointment process would be the same as outlined for the strong mayor initiative, but removal of the city manager would not be a unilateral power of the mayor. Instead, with cause, a majority vote by the City Council could remove the city manager or the mayor could remove the city manager with majority approval of the council.
The rationale behind this recommendation was questioned. Members of the Charter Review Committee said that their decision was meant to ensure the mayor and city manager are a team, which could be better accomplished by allowing the mayor to choose his or her city manager.
"Would this create a revolving door policy of city managers?" asked Peggy Alexander, a local school teacher. "Since the mayor and city manager would work so closely together, could we expect a new city manager every four years as new mayors get elected?"
The citizens in attendance also wanted a clear understanding the underlying issues that formed the committee's recommendations.
"What were the strong points that you [the Charter Review Committee] used to get to your decision for the recommendations?" asked JoAnne Bernhard.
Dan Gorfain, chairman of the Sacramento Metropolitan Arts Commission, asked if the recommendations were "a compromise of the committee members."
In response, Charter Review Committee member Alan LoFaso said: "There is a desire from some members of the public for the mayor to have some additional power."
The committee's recommendations would enhance the current mayoral system. The recommendations centered around three points the committee felt were important for Sacramento's government. They were:
1) A mayor sitting with the city council enhances citizen access to the mayor.
2) A mayor sitting with the city council fosters a collaborative community environment.
3) Placing the mayor in an more executive-type positon seperates the mayor from the city council and decreases the public's access to the mayor.
"Good leadership should not be demanded control but should inspire voluntary fellowship," said Chester Newland, Charter Review Committee member and University of Southern California professor of public administration, as he attempted to clarify the differences between the strong mayor initiative and the charter committee recommendations.
Alexander said it also was important to understand how the strong mayor initiative would change the job requirements of the mayor. Committee member Chris Tapio described the transition in business terms, indicating that the mayor would become the chief executive officer and the city manager would fulfill a more administrative role.
"If the strong mayor initiative passes, we may need a different type of mayor," Alexander said. "We need to elect a mayor as someone with a very particular job. Their job would be very different from what it currently is."
Meetings will continue until October 15. The Sept. 21 story by Kathleen Haley (there will be a link) has the times, dates and locations of the remaining meetings.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Article 11(Local Governments)
Sec 3 (b)
(b) The governing body or charter commission of a county or city
may propose a charter or revision.
Amendment or repeal may be proposed by initiative or by the governing body.
California Supreme Court March 2009
Definition of “revision”
"make a far-reaching change in the fundamental governmental structure or the foundational power of its branches"
“substantially alter[s] the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution"
Replace "Constitution" with "City Charter" and the SMI sure walks, talks and quacks like a
REVISION.
My point is just because a writer stated they didn't do much doesn't mean that writer knows everything they did. Surely you know this and as soon as a writer says something negative about Johnson you'll play musical chairs and let it be known the writer missed something....Don't get me wrong I have respect for many writers at the Bee, so many have heard the cries of families suffering as a result of youth violence... but I disagree with the writer's opinion.
When I attended a city charter commission meeting at city hall it was said the community forums meetings would both educate and give the community a chance to ask questions and have a voice. But it would be just like Johnson (and his camp) to overlook the community, put the community on mute and think the meetings are to just explain what the Charter Commission did. I am not at all surprised by the response- it's transparent.
You must have missed the Charter Commission meeting on Oct. 5. That's where, according to the Sac Press report: "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."
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/14956/Strongmayor_idea_scoffed_at_town_hall
The committee no longer even pretends it's a fair panel. They have moved on to being a political operation, with the stated goal of defeating the Strong Mayor Initiative. Using tax dollars for a political campaign is illegal. The commission members must be held to account for their illegal activities.
I don't think it's happening exactly how you describe it. The meeting I attended at city hall (prior to the Oct 5th meeting) conversation was held on how they should educate and listen to the concerns of the community. I don't feel like looking for my notes or the agenda I took from the meeting. But I recall seeing the ol special assistant sitting texting... If there was a problem with it he could have said something, it was open to the public. I spoke. He could have spoke and shared his concerns. The entire night most of the discussion was on keeping it balanced and fair. I forget his name but the other guy the one the Mayor has on the panel he didn't complain at the meeting when discussions were had on how they should be handled. Board members were asked to attend the townhall meetings and several signed up and some did not. I did not get the impression the meetings were slanted in fact several members that I heard speak were pretty vocal on keeping the townhall meetings well balanced and they did not want it to be or appear to be swayed in one direction or another. And I'd like to add, it is insulting for some to assume IF the board was slanting that community members couldn't see through it. It is insulting to think we can not think for ourselves. It is insulting when people assume the community will be swayed by the board members. We will vote what is in our hearts, listen to the recommendations of the board just as we have listened to all the slanting remarks, comments, prophaganda Steve has done on behalf of Mayor Johnson. Come on now. No one has slanted this proposal as much as Steve on every site imaginable. Community members can weigh the pros and cons. But just because Johnson and a team of campaign managers, advisors.... think they can spread prophaganda to sway public opinion doesn't mean the public is that easily swayed by the board or Johnson's camp. My goodness the Strong Mayor Proposal has the Bee slanted in your direction -not to mention kerryjustin1 trickery on the comment section- what is a few board members attending townhall meetings with 10-12 folks in attendance? I don't see you or Steve complaining about the slant from within the Bee and they are reaching more than 10-12 folks in a community. I'll see when I attend the meeting in Meadowview, if they are going to do like some within Johnson's camp have done and that is underestimate and insult the intelligence of the voters. They really appeared sincere when I attended the session at city hall.
The town hall meetings are an open forum for community members to have their questions answered about the strong mayor initiative and the charter committee recommendations.
I would highly encourage everyone to attend these meetings because they provide a very constructive environment to discuss a variety of issues of importance of local citizens.