Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Last City Charter Meeting
by Tina Armour, published on October 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Storyline: Events in Sacramento
Forty-two concerned citizens met at Sierra 2 community center for the last City Charter Meeting Oct. 15 which degenerated into endless questions from a confused audience.
Committee members Cecily Hastings and Alan Lafaso led the discussion about the strong mayor initiative.
"There is a possibility that nothing may come out of this [series of meetings]," Hastings said.
Hastings and Lafaso explained the details and flaws of the strong mayor initiative and their recommendations for an improved innitiative to the rather reluctant audience.
Hastings explained that the executive mayor position would cause the mayor to have an unfair rule over the City Council, because of his role as the interim District 9 councilmember and as the vetoing vote.
"There is no time frame to get a ninth district, so the mayor could be getting to have multiple votes indefinitely," Hastings said.
The committee members had charts and handouts explaining their recommendation and the initiative, but question and comments overtook their presentation. The presentation turned into a history lesson about past government systems and a discussion about the strong mayors in other cities in California as the audience and committee members struggled against each other for a chance to speak.
"I would like to have a bold mayor, but I'd also like him to stay out of jail," committee member Chester Newland said.
Some questions remained unaddressed by the end of the meeting. Many issues that the audience was concerned about, including zoning and structure explanations, were answered with "those explanations will be coming later in the presentation," but were then dropped.
"If you don't like something in the initiative, come voting time there's nothing anybody can do," Hastings said. "It's set in stone. It is what it is."
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
That's pretty rich, coming from a guy that's breaking the law. Maybe Mr. Newland can let us all know what it feel like inside of a jail cell.
Your unsubstantiated slander duly noted.
Slander is used when the defamation of character is spoken. Libel is the defamation of an individual's or an entity's character which is published in a written medium, such as a newspaper. Got it?
Chairman Newland is using the Charter Reform Commission as a taxpayer funded political operation, which is highly illegal. He should be held to account for his actions.
I don't see Newland as a political lion using the charter reform commission as a taxpayer funded political operation. Maybe if he had some special assistants, volunteers, spokespersons, campaign manager perhaps he'd fit into that description.....but when I look at him he really appears to be a kind gentle soul just trying to do the job set before him. We are not where we are- attacking one another - due to Newland, it is due to Johnson and his high speed chase to get this proposal on the ballot so why not hold Johnson accountable first?.
Please state the Mayor's specific violation's of the law. There's nothing illegal about pushing for a charter change. Just because you don't like him isn't enough.
Chairman Newland may be sweet as pie, but he's also a political hack and an hypocrite. More importantly, the Charter Commission he is leading has been turned into a political operation, that by it's own account is using taxpayer funds to defeat the Strong Mayor Proposal. This is a clear violation of the law.
As is your swipe at what you think you know about me.
"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
Otherwise admit, you are a libeler and slanderer, who proudly describes the difference to those you are offending.
In regards to your other comment- You wrote, "... Just because you don't like him isn't enough." ---------- Tommy, How old are you? I don't dislike the Mayor. I dislike deceit, games, trickery,... Heck I don't even dislike you. I don't think you or Mayor Johnson is all that - appears you do-- . I wouldn't put energy into disliking him. You wrote "their is nothing illegal about pushing for a charter change"- Well babe, it wasn't the charter change I was referring to it was the other illegal allegations with St Hope.......... and underage/ minors including the one who is now an adult, not to long ago had a baby (not by Johnson) and she does have issues........... but I'm trying to be nice and didn't think you really needed me to spell it out. I'd continue this discussion but 1) I don't value your opinion and 2) I don't think you are all that and 3) why would you address me or want me to answer after all I can't seem to comprehend (LOL) Tommy, have you ever heard the expression, "no sense arguing with a drunk?" I see you as a person intoxicated with themselves- a drunk- so really their is no reason for me to debate, argue or continue this discussion, you appear drunk- full of yourself. Now please get some rest, drink coffee and take an asprin to prevent a handache in the morning. I only responded because I don't even dislike drunks.
Whoa hold your horses, pump your brakes, slow your roll....Mr Mayor, Seems to me the committee looked at what was written and what was not written-- looked/ read in between the lines - at the hidden and not so hidden agendas. At least I can say the COMMITTEE is transparent. And I agree with the committees findings and heck, we can't just throw caution to the wind.
This is also very important: "Hastings explained that the executive mayor position would cause the mayor to have an unfair rule over the City Council, because of his role as the interim District 9 councilmember and as the vetoing vote. There is no time frame to get a ninth district, so the mayor could be getting to have multiple votes indefinitely," ---------Well heck, you mean the MAYOR'S lawyer who at one time criticized and critiqued our city attorney did not see this unfair advantage/ unfair rule over the council-- What the heck???
Whoa, "endless questions from a confused audience"------ now THAT sends red flags all around this proposal. How on earth can the mayor, advisors, assistants, campaign manager say this proposal was transparent... when many are CONFUSED??? This proposal as written --and written without public input -- is not a reflection of the desires of the community. The Strong Mayor Proposal is a reflection of the Mayor and outside influences. The community, it appears was of NO VALUE to the Mayor UNTIL SIGNATURES. Oh, that's a sock in the gut. If the SMP were a reflection of the desires of the community --the community would of been given the consideration, courtesy, and respect to be given an opportunity to attend these meetings PRIOR to the Mayor gathering signatures...PRIOR to the proposal being written in stone, PRIOR TO THE PROPOSAL TAKEN TO THE COUNSEL FOR VOTE.... HOW CAN A NEW MAYOR show such disregard for the community and a councilmembers that WE elect into office - councilmembers WHO were not asked OR VALUED by the NEW MAYOR? HOW CAN A NEW MAYOR SHOW SUCH DISREGARD for the residents of the city he took an oath to be a public SERVANT for? I give my appreciation and respect to the committee for doing what the Mayor of this city should have done and that is LISTEN to the People, TAKE QUESTIONS from the people, SEEK ADVICE, SOLUTIONS from the people OF THE CITY YOU REPRESENT instead of blindly gathering signatures.................. THIS IS SAD.
The Mayor is a PUBLIC SERVANT and should be a reflection of the community not of self and not developing a proposal without the input of the public. Seems he put the cart before the horse--and underestimating and / or insulting the intelligence of the residents in the city of Sacrmento.. And left many community members to be confused.... How can it be said the proposal is transparent when meetings "degenerated into endless questions from a confused audience" ? Not to mention the CONFUSED talks I hear at stores, barber shops... What the heck, city residents are being shoved a proposal by any means necessary- not limited to and including ---CONFUSION
I'm tired of hearing the Mayor is bold. Cowards hide their agenda. Cowards are sneaky. Cowards are not transparent.................................