Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
City budget, strong mayor debate at Tuesday meetings
by Kathleen Haley, published on June 21, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
Community Tags
915 i street
auto marine specialty painters local 1176
budget cuts
charter reform
city budget
city council
city politics
fiscal year 20102011
gus vina
interim city manager
kevin johnson
mayor
mayor johnson
medical marijuana
plumbers pipefitters local 447
politics
sacramento
sacramento city council
stationary engineers local 39
strong mayor
strong mayor intitiative
unions
utilities department
Loading images
With the city budget and Mayor Kevin Johnson’s updated strong mayor proposal on the City Council’s agenda, the public is likely to see political fireworks at two meetings Tuesday.
During the first meeting, at 915 I St. at 2 p.m. the City Council will discuss key issues related to the city’s budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. The city must settle a $43 million budget gap.
Council members will consider whether to scale back proposed cuts to the city’s fire, parks and police departments. Read the report on some of the planned budget cuts here.
Another issue on the council’s afternoon agenda is the Utilities Department budget. Find information on that budget here.
The City Council will also decide whether to extend city management’s negotiations with three unions for 30 days. The unions are Stationary Engineers, Local 39; Auto, Marine & Specialty Painters, Local 1176; and Plumbers & Pipefitters, Local 447. A document from the interim city manager’s office on the issue can be readhere.
In addition, council members will discuss their views on a possible ballot measure which would tax local medical marijuana dispensaries. Learn more about that discussion here.
At the evening meeting, to be held at 915 I St. at 6 p.m., the City Council will make a final decision on the budget and then discuss Johnson’s new strong mayor plan.
The City Council is discussing, but not voting on, Johnson’s plan. Johnson aims to ask council members to vote in mid-July to put the plan on the November ballot. Read a report on the issue from Johnson’s office here.
City Council meetings are open to the public.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
This mayor has proved to be the single most corrupt Sacramento has seen - EVER!
He has engineered secret deals to sell our already-paid-for water to Nestle at bargain basement rates, for jobs that never materialized, he has been behind scandal after scandal with regard to real estate developers attempts to skirt fees and protective processes, and he as twice now brought forward unprecedented powergrabs to the council, twisting language to Orwellian dimensions, one of which was so poorly drafted it failed constitutional muster.
He has also behaved like a petulant brat when challenged by far wiser and saner minds, especially in his conduct toward the Charter Revision Committee, whose recommendations, after spending considerable time and thoughtful effort, are absent from this current SMI proposal altogether.
He has been a national embarrassment, the subject of IG reports on the operation of his St. Hope charter schools, having defrauded the Americorps program to the tune of nearly $1 million, covering up allegations of child sexual abuse made against him directly, not once, but seven times, ducking potential prosecution by the skin of his teeth by a cozy federal administration seeking to charterize American schools at the expense of what remains of the 'public' in public education.
Our city's charter has operated just fine for eight decades, and aside from minor alterations here and there, it has prevented the kind of corruption aided and abetted by this mayor -- and we need this decentralized authority model now more than ever, with a mayoral incumbent so willing to sell his soul to his backers for whatever he has garnered from them -- perhaps even protection from prosecution for his alleged past deeds with little girls.
Perhaps this is why he sought office in the first place.
But because of his odious performance in office, and for any future pretenders like him, we must not change Sacramento's fundamental constitutional charter, for to do so, and to do so in the manner Mr. Johnson seeks, with no available document of his proposal available to date, rushing to vet his proposal in one night, in a vain attempt to slide this greasy proposal in at the last moment knowing how it would grant unprecedented authority in one very corrupt figure, would be an abomination to this city's history of profound dimensions, and an injustice to the far more thoughtful minds that preceded this mayor and his tribe of thugs.
CITY COUNCIL -- PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS MEASURE!
but whether the public should have the right to vote for the charter change, which affects how the government in which the city we live in, is undebatable in my opinion. why should we not be able to vote on the proposal put forth by the current mayor?
far too often do people here and on other sites automatically say "no" just because KJ is the one who proposes it without looking at what the proposal. the proposal is to change the current charter. the changes may or may not occur during KJ's tenure in office. therefore you should ask yourself, should the next mayor have the additional responsibilities given to him/her by the charter change proposed? well let's look at what has happened recently: building permits scandal, budget issues, the prior city manager's mis-use of utility funds, etc.
so would transferring certain responsibilities stop any of this from happening? maybe, but it does give accountability to an elected official and not an appointed official. what do all of the above have in common? these are the current responsibilities of the city manager. the city manager is an appointed post, not an elected position. in my opinion, the SMI will transfer these responsibiliities (already being abused) to an elected official.
so why should the public not have the right to vote on a proposal that would give specific responsibilities relating to some of the most important things in the city (i.e. budget) to an elected official?
As for the later statement: "Our city's charter has operated just fine for eight decades, and aside from minor alterations here and there, it has prevented the kind of corruption aided and abetted by this mayor..." - it's inherently self-contradictory. If you think the Mayor is guilty of corruption, then clearly the current charter isn't preventing it at all.
As for the Nestle debacle, conversations occurred between the mayor's office, the city manager's office, and Nestle regarding 'getting to yes' in the permit process which allowed avoidance of CEQA considerations, this per an inquiry by Member McCarty, and reported by the Bee -- I believe by Terry Hardy. That you aren't aware of deeper issues involved in this very insidious 'deal' is only germane with regard to your own awareness.
Their use of the water would have ordinarily required CEQA environmental reporting as a part of their permit process, which could potentially have taken years. This was acknowledged by the city attorney, and seconded by a report from the State EPA.
The city's possible collusion was to allow Nestle to go forward without a permit, and therefore, without CEQA EIR's and the like, which was then stopped after the city attorney noted a potential violation of state law.
The issue was 'accommodated' by allowing Nestle to go forward, for which KJ apologized to them, much like Joe Barton apologizing to BP, as an aggrieved party, rather than scolding them, and those who enabled them (including possibly his own office -- and perhaps he himself), for violating the permit process.
The CEQA process could potentially have stopped the 'deal', for its use of water has impacts on water rights, aquifer access, and rate payer inequities, and how the 'deal' came forward in terms of process with absolutely no sanction by the city council.
So, yes, much could have happened to prevent Nestle from getting that permit.
Item 40 Restoration of Services for FY10/11 Budget: Parks and Recreation, Police & Fire Departments (Noticed on 4-23-10) Location: (Citywide)
Recommendation: 1) adopt an intent motion to restore two Police Academies with one-time funding, 2) report back on the plans to restore portions of the Proposed FY2010/11 Budgets for the Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation Departments
Item 41. Department of Utilities Proposed FY2010/11 Budgets (
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing on the Fiscal Year (FY)2010/11 Utilities Operating and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budgets, as amended, and upon conclusion adopt an intent motion to approve.
Item 42. Update on Impacts of County Budget Recommendation: Receive and file.
Item 43. Proposal to Postpone Layoffs Associated with Labor Concession Savings for 30 Days (
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and approve the use of one-time funds to postpone layoffs associated with labor concession savings for 30 days and balance the proposed FY10/11 budget.
Item 44. Proposed November 2010 Revenue Measure
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion 1) discuss a proposed tax measure for placement on the November 2010 ballot to update and modernize the business operations tax and to tax marijuana businesses; and 2) direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and resolution for the proposed tax measure for City Council consideration on July 13, 2010.
Discussion Item (Item 45)
Item 45. City Auditor Audit Plan for Fiscal Year 2010-11
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the City Auditor's Annual Audit Plan for Fiscal Year 2010/11.
Then there is the Evening session
Give A Resounding "NO' Vote To SHOT GUN CHARTER REVISION!
And in other News...the city's counting on that overpayment to Thomas Enterprises for funding some of those new PD officers....When can we expect that million + dollar check, Richard?
RECALL THE ARIZONA 8
Eric Hogue...of Placer County has his agenda and can't vote on issues affecting the City of Sacramento while using his radio hour to try to do so.
Call for a Recall? again 3-4 new faces on council already....with no need for the expense of a special election....The Shotgun Charter Reform IS the news of the day.
Since December 2008, the mayor’s unrelenting strive to take over city hall by multiple means of strong arm tactics reads like a prolonged episode of the cartoon Pinky & the Brain with one slight twist…
Since being sworn into office, Mayor Pinky, has continually asked his self serving volunteers of “Brains”:
Mayor Pinky: “Gee Brains, What we go’in to do tonight?”
The “Brains”: “The same thing we do every night Pinky, Hatch a plan to take over City Hall”
Mayor Pinky: “OK Brains, you craft it I’ll sell it! Narf”
If the charter truly needs revising, it should really be done in a public fashion…with an elected charter commission and any changes to be approved by a vote of the people in 2012.
The tactics employed to date are “machine” and $pecial interest politics at their worse.
The CC has a simple answer…A resounding “NO” vote to this latest and desperate “shotgun” charter revision sham!
How many more times will the Hydra's head be cut off...only to emerge with two more?
At what cost?
Meanwhile the city flounders!
If we focus & go after Rob Fong, we can both turn around this city boycott nonsense, and at the same send a strong warning to other city council members and also the mayors office.
a) Rob started this boycott nonsense. b) Rob Fong feels he is untouchable, since he not faced any serious competition in his district, ever. c) Rob Fong is ambitious, and is looking forward to a mayoral run, a vice mayor seat with SMI, or maybe an assembly seat. Simply put he will not be able to stand the heat from a recall drive. And a focused Rob Fong recall drive and District 4 boycott will cut the legs out from him supporting SMI, which KJ is counting on.
Rich E.:
I can't and won't speak for bbbmerrr
Just as a stand-up plays different venues, utilizing the same facts and jokes
Why waste GOOD Material on but one audience?
And yes, this Shot Gun Charter Reform Sham is a JOKE...albeit a dangerous one!
And Rich-Why do you post as Rich E here and as Regular Joe on SacBee and 2112 on SNR?
Let's be nice!
Mayor Pinky: “Gee Brains, What we go’in to do tonight?”
The “Brains”: “The same thing we do every night Pinky, Hatch a plan to take over City Hall”
Mayor Pinky: “OK Brains, you craft it I’ll sell it! Narf
i agree personnel need to be changed, but the problem is the same rules are applied to the game. if you change the players, but not the rules, at some point the new players will learn how to abuse the system. but if you change the system, then any new players who enter the game will have to abide by an entirely new set of rules.
AZ8: Yes I am fully aware there are new council members coming on (thank God). But that does not erase the fact that this 8 are responsible for the boycott and the holdovers should be expelled. Total dereliction of duty
Where does Angelo reside, Freidmann, Oates, Townsend & Raimundo (PG&E paid them 3+million to bamboozle residents to support prop 16-Failed Power Grab). We see the same players, puppeteers, at work here along with sooo many more. The Developers only want to deal with one person, The Spinners want to sell their access to the mayor, And the Mayor...he's got close to $650K invested in his election and this initiative...$500K of which is a loan...hoping to get paid back...probably with interest!
Who were those big property owners out in Natomas...did they actually live in that flood plain? Yet controlled it's development to the tune of "Build Baby Build. How's that worked out?
K.Hovnanian...out of New Jersey...30 + illegal permit issuance's...how well publicized was that Dec 2008 moratorium? Well enough that even Ose tried like mad to get his permits issued prior to it, following that infamous Stop Work Order.
We saw a shake up on June 8 via a public election process that people knew was coming...unlike an unwritten charter revision proposal that is scheduled for 20 minutes tonight and 1 more meeting...
No way to revise a "constitution". I got to believe if someone suggested changing our US constitution in this manner...without a constitutional convention being convened, you might have a slight problem with it...well that is the function of a charter commission with regards to out City's Constitution.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - regardless of what you think of the boycott, they responded to their constituents . So unless you want to vote out the residents of Sacramento at the same time as voting out the council members, the beef seems misplaced.
The teabaggers caught wind of a legal term they'd like to bandy about knowing nothing of the elements of 'dereliction' in this case, or defining conduct as a violation.
It's just more ridiculousness from ridiculous people who are probably racist, and would like to punish anyone who seeks to address the racism of the Arizona law.
Retaliation doesn't solve problems; it compounds them.
What's next guys, will I have to show proof of Sac city residency to come to a Kings game?
Maybe Marcos Breton will have to move to the city to continue writing about it?
Maybe all Sac cops should have to leave their Galt, EDH, Folsom, Roseville homes and move to the city too to serve there?
Can I at least open a pot dispensary downtown?
The holder of any elective office may be recalled, in the manner provided by state law applicable to cities, by the electors after such person has held office six months.
If you don't live in the city...you can't vote...your not an elector...you can't recall...but you can have an opinion.
I don't know if to need to be an elector within the CC district...I will not assume...but an elector of a CC person must reside in their district...logic might indidctate that to the petetion be signed by those residents....just a guess...not a fact.
Joe:I'm pretty sure proof of residency will only be required to Vote Here :-)
RE:"Ok so according to your thinking I'd have to be a resident of, e.g., LA or SF or Davis to have opinions about their politicians, too? " I didn't say that...you can have all the opinions you want...but when you start throwing large amounts of money at someone...I'm going to ask why?
Do you think Jefferey Dorso is this involved in the politics of Davis? Why not if that's where he's chosen to live? He can spin this sham all he wants...he can't vote on it...and that's a good thing...we have enough out-of-towners...aka carpetbaggers, already.
;)
Read the report on the issue from Johnson’s office here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33393341/Accountability-Plan-of-2010
http://sacramento.granicus.com/core/events/public/ecommentsform.aspx?guid=7f21710f-d995-102c-9f78-c9e72a1e1616