Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Town hall suspicious of strong mayor proposal
by Anthony Bento, published on October 11, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Storyline: Government
Loading images
Participants in a town hall meeting on Thursday held at Caleb Greenwood Elementary School expressed skepticism and suspicion about the "strong mayor" proposal endorsed by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.
"I suspect that it [the strong mayor initiative] is a power grab, but I suspect that something will come out of [the town hall meeting] and I'll be able to make a rational decision," said resident Mike Montgomery.
The town hall meeting, which attracted about 50 people, included a thorough presentation of the strong mayor proposal that has been placed on the June 2010 ballot. The presentation was by members of the Charter Review Committee, a group created by the City Council to research and draft an alternative to the strong mayor proposal.
Chester Newland, professor of public policy at the Sacramento branch of the University of Southern California, is a member of the committee who is opposed to the strong mayor proposal.
"A mayor with talent and community organization has the ability to inspire cooperation and communitywide participation," Newland said. "The [strong mayor] initiative will reduce the council members to cyphers ... the mayor will divide them into factions."
Newland is a dissenting voice on the committee, which has recommended that the role of the mayor be strengthened. A majority of the committee members suggested that the mayor be given the power to appoint the city manager, with the concurrence of the council. The city manager, however, would remain the city's chief executive officer.
The strong mayor initiative would make the mayor the city's chief executive officer. About 800 non-union city officials, such as the city manager, would serve at the pleasure of the mayor.
"The criticism [of the strong mayor proposal] is that is politicizes the staff," said committee member Alan G. LoFaso.
"A mayor needs a manager [who can] speak truth to power when the mayor makes a mistake," Newland said.
If the strong mayor proposal becomes law, the mayor would no longer sit on the City Council. To fill this vacancy, the proposal calls for the creation of a ninth City Council district. The proposal, however, does not specify how the district will be created. The strong mayor initiative specifies that the mayor is to sit on the City Council as its ninth member and serve as mayor until the ninth district is created.
When asked when the ninth council member would be seated, LoFaso replied, "It is unclear."
The strong mayor initiative also requires that the mayor submit an annual budget to the City Council. "If the council cannot agree to a budget, the mayor's original proposed budget becomes law," said LaFaso.
Other U.S. cities have enacted elements of Sacramento's proposed strong mayor initiative, but with a difference. "Most cities, when they went to strong mayor systems, created term limits," said committee member Cecily Hastings. The proposed initiative does not contain such a provision.
Asked if the strong mayor initiative can be altered before the June 2010 election, Hastings replied, "The [strong mayor] proposal is set in stone. No one can change it."
The City Council has until March to place the Charter Review Committee's proposal on the June ballot. If it is placed on the ballot, it will be listed alongside the strong mayor proposal.
The proposals would not directly compete on the ballot. Instead, each initiative would be voted on separately. If a majority of voters approve both proposals, the one with the most votes becomes law, said LaFaso.
The Charter Review Committee's documents and communications are available at: cityofsacramento.org/charter.
To see an outline of the different proposals, click here.
To learn more about the strong mayor proposal, visit the Sacrament Press 'strong mayor' tag.
Photo credit: Anthony Bento
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The article is wrong in suggesting that the Commission was formed to develop an alternative to the strong mayor/council initiative. Actually, it was created (with the support of Mayor Johnson) to look at a comprehensive review of the city charter, including governance. Unfortunately, the Charter Commission -- composed of political appointees and many members who had donated to Mayor Fargo's campaign -- has decided instead to assail the proposal put forward with the support of more than 33,000 Sacramento voters.
A couple of points:
Ms. Hastings notes that the initiative doesn't have term limits. She fails to point out that neither does the Charter Commissions. Voters can end a mayor's term at any election if they so choose.
Mr. Newland wrongly suggests that City Councils don't have power under a strong mayor system. He ought to check in with New York, Los Angeles, and other major cities, where city councils and city council presidents (which Sacramento would have under the initiative) actually are empowered and do things other than approving what the city manager tells them to -- which is the case in Sacramento.
The Charter Commission is a temporary city body, appointed for a specific purpose--what would be the point of term limits? Although I would encourage you to look into that--most city boards and commissions do have term limits.
"Voters can end a mayor's term at any election if they so choose" is pretty disingenuous, it is basically the argument used against term limits at the state level too--by the status quo that wanted to avoid having to deal with things like term limits.
As the backers of the Strong Mayor Initiative have made clear, it's pretty easy to buy signatures (or votes) which puts the power to elect a mayor entirely in the hands of the people with the most dollars. Heck, for $150,000 I could probably find 33,000 people willing to sign a petition insisting that Steve Maviglio should be forced to wear a chicken suit whenever he leaves the house.
Slight kudos, by the way, for downgrading your previous assertion of 50,000 voters to the probably more correct 33,000.
The Sacramento city council isn't there to do what the city manager tells them to do, he is there to carry out their will. If he fails to do so, he can be fired at any time. The city councils in strong-mayor cities aren't there to approve what the city manager tells them to do--they are there to approve what the strong mayor tells them to do.
Although, in those cities, the strong mayor wouldn't have a vote on the city council (including the right to vote against efforts to overturn his own decisions), something that no other strong-mayor system has. And because of the structural problems of the "ninth district," and the lack of any requirement as to when that ninth district will be created, there is no time limit on how long that "temporary" vote could last.
Or perhaps when some people oppose something they looked at comprehensively and they tend to voice their concerns and call it like they see it and someone bias - a campaign manager- will hang them out to dry so they speak out. and become more vocal.
Or perhaps the individual the mayor appointed to the charter committee should have spoken of your concerns and brought attention to any misgivings prior to the charter decision being made.
Or perhaps the assistant sitting in the audience at the charter hearings should have went to the microphone and stated the concerns since it was open to the public. I didn't see anyone stopping people from speaking (I admit I only attended one meeting but I was welcomed to go to the microphone and speak.) Seems someone is crying over spilled milk-- perhaps the campaign manager let the ball drop. If you didn't like the way things were going or didn't like the fact the charter commission looked at it without prejudice (and I know you'll argue that point) but someone- you an assistant, a volunteer even a community member pro Strong Mayor Proposal could have spoken up before now. I didn't see a gag order
As for initiatives, you might want to re-think what you wrote. The overwhelming number of initiatives proposed never make the ballot.
And you're wrong about the city manager being able to be "fired at any time." It takes five or six votes (depending whether you go with existing law or the proposed charter commission law) to do that. Have you ever tried working for 9 different bosses? That's what the city manager has to do now under the current system. And that's why there's no bold vision for our city. Ray Kerridge does the best he can under the current system of governance, which, by the way, has been chucked by most cities our size (an inconvenient truth for you, I know).
Mr. Edgar, a former city manager, was a financial contributor to the Fargo campaign. He also was appointed by Mayor Fargo to the Citizens Compensation Commission, which recommended raises for the mayor and city council. Do you really think a former city manager would favor changing the city's government to a strong mayor/council system given his background? I'm sure he's an honest guy, but there's an inherent bias there.
You are welcome to review the contributions to the Mayor's campaign. it's a public record. What I was saying was that the Commission members had an initial bias from the get-go.
The concept of a strong mayor in Sacramento may be worth a look in the future but not this proposal and not this mayor.
If they DON'T agree, then the Mayor's budget moves forward.
Pretty much the way most of America works.
At both the federal and state level, the executive's proposed budget is more of initial blueprint; a blueprint that is often significantly modified or discarded entirely by the legislature. This is in keeping with a legislature's central power- the power of the purse.
What typically happens at the federal level if there is a disagreement on a budget is that the Congress passes a "continuing resolution" -- putting the previous year's budget forward until an impasse is reached. It's quite rare that governments "shut down." In my lifetime, I can remember it happening only once.
You are simply wrong that the City Council won't be able to override the Mayor's "will." Read the initiative. It's no different than most cities.
You can read more about other strong mayor initiatives at the unbiased, nonprofit: http://strongmayorcouncil.org/