Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
City Charter Review Committee Final Town Hall Reveals "Gordian Knot"
by Marion Millin, published on October 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Storyline: Politics
Loading images
Sierra II in Curtis Park was the location for the ninth and final Town Hall Meeting of the City of Sacramento Charter Review Committee.
The crowd of approximately 45 people was on the Baby Boom-plus end of the generational scale. It included members of the public, neighborhood representatives and former, current and candidate public officials, from the Central City, Curtis/Land Park, Oak Park and the South Area.
The City Charter legally and procedurally defines the City of Sacramento and its operations. Kevin Johnson's Strong Mayor Initiative, which would dramatically change the City Charter, will be on the June 2010 ballot.
Sacramento was founded with a City Charter in 1858. In 1921, during the Progressive Era, in response to rampant corruption, Sacramento changed to the current strong manager/council system to achieve more accountability. Ironically, the current Strong Mayor Initiative proponents have campaigned that accountability is not possible under the current system.
In light of Johnson's own proposals for redefining the checks and balances of power, a public process of charter policy analysis is appropriate. The City Council appointed the Charter Review Committee to explore and recommend potential changes to the City Charter.
The Strong Mayor Initiative would change the City Charter in these areas: the Mayor's role, (add) veto power, appointment of the City Manager, appointment of Charter officers (City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Attorney), appointment of Department Directors and 800+ non union employees and budgetary powers.
The Charter Review Committee recommendations are for changes in two of those areas:
The City Manager -- currently appointed by the City Council -- would be appointed by the Mayor.
The city budget, currently submitted to Council by the City Manager, would be based on the Mayor's policy priorities, reviewed and modified by the Council and developed into a proposed budget by the City Manager. The City Council and Mayor would have until June 30th each fiscal year to approve the budget.
Under the Strong Mayor Initiative, the Mayor would propose the annual budget, a Council Majority would approve the budget and the Mayor would have veto power over Council's changes to the budget. The Mayor's budget would take effect in 30 days, if the Council had not voted to override his veto by that deadline.
Soon after the public input process has been completed, the Charter Review Committee will present final recommendations to the City Council. The Council will review the recommendations and receive additional input from the public. Then, the council will vote on whether -- or not -- to place the Charter Review Committee recommendations as a measure on the June 2010 ballot.
If the City Council decides to put the Charter Review Committee final recommendations on the June 2010 ballot and if they are approved by the voters, those changes would be effective in Nov. 2012, with the next mayoral election.
If Kevin Johnson's Strong Mayor Initiative passes, those changes will take effect 45 days after the election is certified.
Even if the Council does vote to put these recommendations on the ballot, the public will still have the option to NOT vote for any changes to the City Charter.
The materials provided at the Town Hall Meeting (see links below) included a chart showing the various cities with Strong Mayors and how each is organized -- differently, with different sets of checks and balances. The Johnson proposed Strong Mayor Initiative affords Sacramento's mayor more power -- with fewer checks and balances -- than any other strong mayor city. The potential transition period is shorter than in any other Strong Mayor city, some of which have taken years -- and multiple elections -- to study and implement such fundamental changes.
The proposed Strong Mayor Initiative has been compared to legislative or corporate organizations. Yet this SMI eradicates the current council/manager system, which is similar to many corporate/board structures. It also eradicates the legislative level of public input and public accountability, which is available when the Mayor participates with -- and the City Manager is answerable to -- the elected representatives on the City Council.
The Charter Review Committee's tentative recommendations include retaining the Mayor as a member of the voting body of the City Council, with one vote and no veto power. Johnson's Strong Mayor Initiative proposes that the Mayor will not have a vote and will have veto power, which leaves a ninth spot open in the Council voting body.
The new Strong Mayor would still have the power and the vote of the ninth Council Member ... until the 9th Council District is defined and the 9th District Council Member is elected. Redistricting ordinarily follows the 10 year census process. 2010 fast approaches. Redistricting is under state, not local, jurisdiction. The answer -- to how and when will the 9th Council Member be in place -- is that there is no answer.
Other cities that have adopted structural changes this dramatic have used a long term view and a deliberative process. Details regarding the 9th Council Member could be resolved, before the transfer of multiple elected officials' shared power into the hands of just one person.
The Strong Mayor Initiative bypasses that process, transfers unprecedented professional and managerial power to one politician and affords this aspiring Strong Mayor a bonus dip of power until the 9th Council Member is seated.
These crucial and unresolved aspects of the Strong Mayor Initiative were referred to in the town hall meeting as a "Gordian Knot." If ignored, those aspects will entangle the City and its Charter in all the "unforeseen consequences," litigation and unnecessary expenditures of a predictable mess.
The Charter Committee recommendations would retain the Mayor's role as a voting (9th) member of the City Council, participating in weekly meetings and without veto power.
The current City Charter provides for a professionally trained and professionally selected City Manager, supported by the authority of the full City Council, with the Mayor as a participant. Extreme empowerment of the Mayor disempowers the Council and weakens their accountability and availability to their community.
There is much more to consider and more time to make your voice heard to your City Council.
Information is available at:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/ http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/Town-Hall-Meeting-Notes-Audio.html http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/documents/CRC-Town-Hall-Presentation-Revised-30-Sept-2009.pdf
Sign up to be email notified on your preferred City of Sacramento issues and events at: https://service.govdelivery.com/service/user.html?code=CASACRA
Contact your City Council Member at:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/council/index.html
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The 9th Mystery Vote is a real shocker. Seems to me that no matter how anyone feels about this otherwise, if that aspect is not addressed before the election, the City literally can't afford to be stuck in the legal, ethical and legislative quagmire that would result.
As Rhonda Erwin pointed out elsewhere, the onus would be on the mayor's team -- to plan for the transition and creation of the 9th Council District and election of the Council Member. His lawyer wrote the Strong Mayor Initiative, insisted on the short timeline and insisted that the SMI -- if the voters approve it -- take effect during this mayor's term.
Just when were they planning on addressing the fact that their Strong Mayor Initiative would make Kevin Johnson a non-voting Mayor who still has a vote!! and the power of the veto and the former powers of the City Manager?
Also worth mentioning: the committee facilitators did a good job of presenting a lot of information in a short amount of time and fielding questions. Thanks to all who participated.
Edit: a minor quibble. One of the meeting leaders stated that the public may attend City Council meetings and speak directly to the Council Members for an allotted 3 minutes.
New, not-yet-Strong-enough-to-be-Accountable Mayor Kevin Johnson has reduced the public's time to speak from 3 minutes to 2 minutes.
"WHO were the representatives from the Charter committee?"
Alan G. LoFaso and Cecily Hastings were facilitators at this Town Hall -- other members led other Town Halls. Attending were JoAnn Fuller, Chester Newland and Jay Wisham.
" WHO made the Gordian Knot comment?"
Alan G. LoFaso
"Was this a lecture of info to the audience?"
The Committee's tentative recommendations were explained and questions from the audience were taken throughout the meeting.
"Were any questions asked or answered?"
Yes.
"Any votes or information gathered BY the committee members to be taken back to the committee"
Yes, notes, not votes. Available on the web site.
"Isn't a town hall format for information EXCHANGE?"
Yes, I apologize if my version of the issue and information that I learned during the exchange did not reflect that. This article attempted to share -- in some hopefully not mind-numbing -- detail the big picture. Such info is often only available by attending a meeting and being part of the exchange. I hope it is of some interest and use to those who weren't able to attend.
Online input to the Committee and more information, including the notes and videos of meetings are available at
http://www.cityofsacramento.org
People across the nation interested in good government should be monitoring this process occurring now in Sacramento. Running the public business on assumptions, indifference and individual surrender of the 1st and 10th Amendments to "them", "others", "the way things have always been"--and a small group of more powerful and well-financed "leaders" few of us know much about--is a bad, very bad, idea.
Grant Millin
Asheville, NC
NRM