Tag Cloud
Mayor Kevin Johnson’s latest strong mayor proposal drew strong reactions from a councilwoman and members of the public even though it was not officially on the City Council agenda.
Johnson’s new strong mayor package was taken off the agenda Tuesday night without explanation from city officials.
Even though the proposal was pulled from the meeting, the council heard comments from several members of the public, pro and con.
Then, Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy spoke of her opposition to Johnson’s plan.
“I think the entire city is suffering from a case of strong mayor fatigue,” she said, adding that the city needs to stop focusing on the issue of a strong mayor form of government. Sheedy suggested focusing instead on the city’s budget and problems with its Utilities and Community Development departments.
Trisha Flynn, an owner of Chops Steakhouse downtown, spoke in favor of Johnson’s proposal, calling the City Council “slow-moving” and “antiquated.”
Carolyn Veal-Hunter also supported Johnson’s plan. “The voters want to be heard in June,” she said.
Meanwhile, Bill Camp, the plaintiff who challenged the original strong mayor initiative in Sacramento Superior Court, said he wanted to see “adequate public vetting” of the new plan.
Matt Kelly, an opponent of Johnson’s original strong mayor initiative, was skeptical about the two-week timeline to complete the proposal.
The proposal is on a two-week timeline because the City Council has a Feb. 23 administrative deadline to complete the measure. The Feb. 23 deadline is for measures that will be placed on the June ballot.
Kelly said two weeks to complete the proposal was “a bit sudden.”
Johnson provided specifics on his new plan at a press conference Tuesday. The mayor said he has ideas but the proposal has not yet been written.
“Yes, we have two weeks left before this has to be on the ballot,” Johnson said. “But this has been debated in our community at a minimum over the last nine (or) ten months, and certainly while I was campaigning.”
Under the new proposal, the mayor would maintain three main elements of the original plan, Johnson said. The new plan would enable the mayor to propose the budget; hire and fire “key personnel”; and have veto powers over specific items. The council would have the power to override the mayor’s veto, he said.
Johnson also said he plans to make key changes. The mayor would not appoint the city attorney and certain city officials. However, the mayor still would appoint the city manager.
Johnson noted that he wants to add language specifying that the mayor’s hiring powers would not extend to all city employees who are not represented by unions. The city’s charter review committee said the original initiative would have allowed the mayor to hire about 800 employees.
Johnson further said he wants to include other elements in the measure, including language creating term limits, an ethics committee and an independent budget analyst.
He also called for adding a “voter reapproval” section to the measure. This means that the new strong mayor form of government would expire after a certain time, Johnson said. Citizens then would vote on keeping or removing the strong mayor government, he added.
Photo by Anthony Bento.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
"Johnson noted that he wants to add language specifying that the mayor’s hiring powers would not extend to all city employees who are not represented by unions."
So, this means that his hiring/firing powers would extend to all city employees who are represented by unions?
He wrote it over the weekend just before the deadline? Sounds like the way I used to write term papers in school...hopefully this got a more careful review than my term papers!
There was one single mailer that he sent out that very briefly talked about SMI as something that we should think about looking at down the road ... then he proposed a fully drawn out SMI initiative less than two weeks after taking office ...
Even *I* could not have expressed such sentiments at this last ditch effort by KJ and his nepharious backers to thwart the Constitution and the will of the REAL people -- and not those bizarros who signed the SMI petition thinking they were signing off on some other issue -- by touting this 'my dog ate my homework' 'kinder gentler' SMI proposal....
Of course, Johnson, in all his sarcastic petulant glory, arrogantly chastised anyone who questioned him on this matter, and later on the Arena update.
And, apparently there's more to this Arena thing than originally put forward by KJ, through his attempt to once again circumvent process to 'change the discussion' and self-appoint the 'Sacramento First' committee to consider alternatives for an arena buildout....
I am not a supporter of ANY arena proposal at this time of economic hardship, especially in light of the unprecedented poverty issues at hand -- this is an unnecessary expense at this time, especially considering the precariousness of those involved in the financial house of cards that seems to keep the 'land swap' three-card monty Cal Expo deal alive....
But, civil process is why we have government, and KJ just seems to flaunt and thwart at will, regardless of the sanction of his peers, who are far closer to those they represent than is he....
Just when is this guy going to be recalled??? I don't think we can sustain a full term with his near pathological will for greater and greater authority in light of the absolute MESSES he makes that we will have to clean up once he's gone....
Perhaps some 'new light' will be shed at the next Cornerstone Breakfast????
Here's the article: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/dining/archives/2010/02/midtown-eatery.html
***UPDATE*** The restaurant is HOPING that people will call and express their support for its continued operation at 24th and J... The restaurant's number is 441-0948...
***UPDATE*** WHAT ABOUT A PLAN B GET-TOGETHER AT TRES HERMANAS ??? They open at 7am on Saturdays, and they can accommodate large groups of 12 - 20 people, and it could potentially be a little later in the morning if *some* like... (lol)....(though, *I* will be there *early*)....
It would be great if you could join us...
I don't have a day and time yet, but please let either Susie or myself know if you're interested -- either by our contact info and we'll get you in the loop once a day/time are set...
Take care...
bbbbmer
Susie@shieldscg.com
One of the reasons the public objected to Johnson's introduction of this matter, announced at the last minute by Kevin Johnson on his blog and to the press, is that this was NOT on the City Council agenda, in violation of the law.
This article's first paragraph says it wasn't on the agenda, then makes it sound like it was on the agenda and was removed. It was not on the agenda on the City website on Tuesday. When was it ever on the agenda? Did it meet the legal deadline of at least 72 hours notice?
As pointed out on SacPress by FifthGenerationSacramentan:
At the top of every City Council Agenda it clearly states:
Government Code 54950 (The Brown Act) requires that a brief description of each item to be transacted or discussed be posted at least 72 hours prior to a regular meeting. The City posts Agendas at City Hall as well as offsite meeting locations.
Would it be reasonable for SacPress readers to expect SacPress staff writers to address such things more clearly? Esp. after the matter has been raised by readers the day before and it IS one of the objections; could the writer address the fact, rather than help the City and KJ fudge the abuse of the legal Agenda process?
It's relevant to the complete disregard Johnson displays for the legal process as it exists now. He is so bent on changing Sacramento's current structure of government, he has never learned what it is or how to follow it. Earth to Kevin: THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE WON'T GIVE YOU MORE POWER. YOU DID NOT RUN AND WERE NOT ELECTED TO BE KING.
Johnson has never explained why he is unable to serve in the position he was elected to, effectively and accountably, with the level of power he holds now.
KJ sounds like one of the Republicans in the Senate now..... What a goldarn hypocrite! And small wonder, since Frank Luntz (the current Dr. Doom of the GOP) has apparently been in consultation with Hiltchakak all along...
Since your new to this blog, It looks like this is your first post, I''ll accept your statement as an honest mistake. While you are correct that if you look at the Agenda right now, you will see item listed. 72HRs prior or 24Hrs prior to last night's meeting...it wasn't there. Why do you think KJ said it's not on tonight's agenda, and raised no objections ? If you have any doubt-contact the city clerk's office.
As the saying goes appearances can be deceiving. Especially around the BOSS MAYOR Initiative I & now II.
It would be great if you could join us...
I don't have a day and time yet, but please let either Susie or myself know if you're interested -- either by our contact info and we'll get you in the loop once a day/time are set...
Take care...
bbbbmer
If Luntz has been involved for any length of time, that helps explain the over the top level of "appearances can be deceiving" at play here.
It would be great if you could join us...
I don't have a day and time yet, but please let either Susie or myself know if you're interested -- either by our contact info and we'll get you in the loop once a day/time are set...
Take care...
bbbbmer
...But given that the SAG group IS Tom Hiltchakk, essentially, I doubt any action is in the foreseeable future...
It would be great if you could join us...
I don't have a day and time yet, but please let either Susie or myself know if you're interested -- either by our contact info and we'll get you in the loop once a day/time are set...
Take care...
bbbbmer
It is funny Sheady uses the same tactics use by Senate Republican's (total obstruction). She is one indvidual the city desperately needs to get off the council.
There is NO pressing need for yet another SMI, and the court said that the SMI was far too great a change to be enabled by a simple initiative...
I don't give a damn what party Sandy Sheedy belongs to -- she stood up for what is RIGHT at the council meeting, and I'm as staunch a Demcrat as they come!
The only person who should be 'off the council' is KJ -- it's CLEAR that he is WAYYYY in over his head, and behaves like a little spoiled brat when confronted -- which is why he might have the clandestine core 'desires' he has.... and it seems his defenders are mainly old Republican men....
I'll bet THAT doesn't get me invited to Cornerstone.
And Rob Fong will make a great mayor...
And you're right -- if you want to be in bed with KJ, you're not invited...
The onus is on this mayor to work with the system as it is and quit wasting his own and everyone else's time with more power grabs. If he can't do that, he had better explain why he is of incapable of being an effective and accountable mayor under the current system.
Anyone in Kevin's fan club (this may not apply to you)
who repeats Luntzian bumper sticker falsehoods,
without any knowledge or engagement in the local government process
and attempts to embarrass Sacramentans into recklessly changing the City Charter to fit KJ's agenda and temperment,
is not offering "synergestic" solutions.
They don't serve Kool Aid at the Cornerstone.
No matter what comes out of the SMI debate -- the Mayor and the Council need to learn to work together. Both sides need to proactively work to reach out to one another to focus on dealing with the real issues of our city. Whether it's for two and a half more years or six and a half more years (or 10 and a half ... 14-1/2 ... 18-1/2, etc ... nor term limits, remember?), our city cannot wait for a new Mayor to take office to address with the very real issues facing it.