Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Should Our New Mayor be Granted More Power?
by Steve Vicente, published on January 20, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Storyline: Sacramento City Politics
While exiting Target or the supermarket recently, I've been approached by young folks with clipboards collecting signatures. The first of these petitions is to put proposal on the ballot to grant Sacramento's mayor more power (to propose budgets and appoint positions, currently the City Manager's role). The conversation went something like this:
Petitioner: "Excuse me, are you a registered voter in Sacramento?"
Me: "Yes. What is that?"
Petitioner: "Would you mind signing this? It's to give the mayor the power to get things done."
Me: "No thanks, I think the mayor has enough power."
Petitinoer: "Well, this is just to get it on the ballot so voters can decide. Would you sign it?"
Me: ... walking away.
So, I wasn't surprised when I read in the Bee that they already have enough signatures to put this on the ballot. With pushy kids getting paid-per-signature like that, no surprise. The question is - should we grant our newly elected mayor these additional powers? On one hand, I don't disagree with having the City Manager's responsibilities put in the hands of an elected official (the Mayor). I can't really think of a problem with the Mayor proposing the budget either, so long as the city council remains part of the input and approval process.
The only thing that bothers me about this proposal is that it's being pushed by a mayor who hasn't yet proven himself or his agenda. Concentrating power and decision making won't necessarily lead to better decisions. I'm not convinced that Kevin Johnson can't work towards his mission within the existing system. If he can't, how would he know? He hasn't been in office long enough to even try. When I think of cities with "powerful" mayors, I think of cities with corruption. I, for one, would like to learn more about the new mayor's plans and approach before seeing a change to the city charter.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Obviously, a recall is an idea that will go nowhere, but it's certainly would make for an exciting election, with simultaneous referendums on a strong mayor system and the guy who wants that power.
Doubly unfortunate: because this proposal came from a rushed nonpublic process, there was no opportunity to consider other possible amendments to the city charter. We could have made the city's high offices elected positions (thereby making the city manager, clerk, and attorney accountable to voters). We could have enacted term limits for our mayor and quite long-serving city councilmembers. We could have taken San Diego's lead and enacted a "trial period" for our strong mayor system.
I saw an interesting note in the SN&R's "Bites" column about the author of the "strong mayor" proposal:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=896279
"The strong-mayor proposal was drafted by attorney Tom Hiltachk, who has represented the California GOP, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Sacramento Kings, and disgraced former Republican state Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, among other unsavory characters. The Johnson transition team that helped Hiltachk write the measure on Johnson’s behalf is chock-full of real-estate attorneys, developers and other interested parties with business before the city."
I find it interesting that a group that is banking so heavily on the support of people who voted for Obama is so heavily backed by Republican power players.
I think a study of these systems and corruption would be a great place to start. I think I will check out if there are any modern studies of these systems.
Oh, and the idea that somehow there is no corruption here because the City Manager is unelected? HA!
Presumably the organization that drafted the current proposal undertook at least an informal study of strong mayor systems. If so, that study <i>wasn't</i> transparent, though. We don't know who participated (other than Hiltachk, mentioned above), what ideas were considered, or what criteria were used to rate those ideas. That opaqueness makes the charter amendment look about as corrupt as a city office could ever be, and seems to be driving the pushback as much as anything.
Why don't our lawmakers make laws?
When Jerry Brown took the mayoralty in Oakland, he pushed and passed a strong-mayor government. We can debate from now until the next election for governor whether or not strong-mayor is working in Oakland. San Francisco? Strong mayor=political circus (and to be honest, plenty of intrigue).
My romantic vision: citizen participation, political transparency, honesty, ethics, active, minimally-biased local media and good attendance at Town Hall meetings. Citizen participation should not be limited to signing or not signing a petition thrust into your space in the parking lot of a strip mall.
However the initiative process does create jobs for those doing the legwork.
Would we rather have a mayor who has the authority to dictate his/her wishes to staff based on those who have the power and money to influence the mayor? And leave the ideas and concerns of the general public out of the process? That is pretty much what we had for the last eight years at the federal level and it failed miserably, hurting us all. Do we want to replicate that at the city level?
That kind of power and "leadership" is like the past belief in the "infallibility of the Pope."
.
Now, it seems obvious to point out that the Republicans were wrong about Sarah Palin: people supported Clinton because she's a smart, capable person, not just because she is a woman. It is a strategy that assumes that voters are ill-informed and slow-witted. It is largely based on hoping that enough of the electorate is dumb enough to fall for it.