Loading a commission with politicians and special interests is exactly the wrong thing to do. I think 74,000 signatures on petitions is about as democratic a process you can get. Do you know how many people contributed to the last charter reform effort? Stick out one hand and count your fingers, that was about the extent of it.

I think Sacramento is ready to move to a strong mayor form of government, but the way SAG has gone about this isn’t working. Suspending the paid signature gatherers is a good first step. Form a blue ribbon panel of community leaders to solicit input from the public about what type of strong mayor system will work best for Sacramento. You will already have significant public buy-in when this is ready to be placed on the ballot.

Steven, tell us why a public commission with politicians and special interests is inherently worse than four or five anonymous people. Sacramento probably does need a strong mayor system, but we voters need to know that we're not being thrust back into the bad old days of machine politics and strong-arm political bosses. An open commission, as was used in San Diego, would let citizens participate in (as opposed to just approve or disapprove of) the city structure. It would also help identify exactly the areas in which the current system is lacking and make sure any reasonable idea is considered to fix those flaws.

The basic question is this: how, as a citizen and voter, will I be sure that the people who drafted the charter amendment have the city's interests at stake? How will I be sure that the flaws they've identified are the true problems in the city's political structure? How will I be sure that they've considered all possible solutions? How will I be sure that the solutions they've decided to include are the best ones?

Simple reassurances aren't going to cut it, and repeating those empty reassurances hurts more than it helps. If you can honestly address those questions, nine-tenths of the promotional work for the strong mayor campaign will already be done.

74,000 people signed petitions in about six weeks. More than 300 turned out for the first meeting of the group. I've been in Sacramento politics for about a decade, and I've never seen a stronger grassroots effort. The reason the seed money was from large contributors was that the campaign and organization had to start from somewhere. Take a look at Obama's early money.

I want to know who has confirmed the registrar is who they say they are? I would also like to know if said registrar's counting calibrater has been serviced and up to code.

Come on WB thats the response anytime the answer is the opposite of the one you like! Its like saying Im rubber and your glue...

"KJ 's political machine ( and it is a fine machine , that all involved should be proud of)"

I disagree. Considering mayor Johnson's public image still needs remediation after the character assassinations of the campaign, the last thing he needs is to be seen as power-hungry or corrupt. There, his political advisors are doing him a terrible disservice. While he did manage to get elected easily, I don't think his team gave enough credit for that victory to the sheer depth of the public discontent with Heather Fargo (heck, that's half of why you and I thought we had a chance at the seat, Shawn). Judging by their handling of the volunteer staffing issues (particularly the unresolved conflicts of interest) and the botched strong-mayor push, they're operating as if they have a much stronger mandate than they do. It certainly doesn't help them at all to have volunteer spokesman Steven Maviglio getting roasted here, in the comments sections of the Bee and Press, and on my low-volume blog, for repeating talking points and ducking out when substantive questions are asked. Nor does it help to trot volunteer attorney Tom Hiltachk before the city council only to accuse city attorney Eileen Teichert of bias after she gave a very clear and very dry PowerPoint presentation that compared the Johnson strong mayor initiative to fourteen city charters. He did excoriate the council for its lack of action on charter review over the last few years, but he wasn't able to address what should have been obvious flaws in the proposal like the lack of documented legislative intent or consideration of residual powers, and he certainly wasn't able to counter accusations heard often at the meeting that we need to identify the problems in the city government before we start trying to change it.

Frankly, his team is either made up of incompetent tone-deaf politicos or they've pulled off a Machiavellian maneuver to push the need for a strong mayor into the public consciousness. If the latter, they've spent $131,000 to do so and merely succeeded in getting the council to warm to the idea of changing the charter, which is almost certainly going to include mayoral term limits, giving Johnson far less time as he'd like with the special powers.

Also, after Hiltachk's presentation, I figured out Maviglio's 74,000 number: this is the 37,000 signatures for the strong mayor proposal and the 37,000 signatures for the companion initiative.

I do agree that some things need changing.

I think dismissing the last 8 years is pretty silly. I am very, very proud of our city's growth in the last 8 years.