The City Council will be discussing the latest version of an executive mayor initiative Tuesday, opening the door to putting charter reform on the June ballot.

A strong mayor initiative has been an on-and-off topic of discussion in Sacramento political circles since it was first brought up by Mayor Kevin Johnson shortly after his election in 2008. The executive mayor version was introduced at a press conference Dec. 21 by the mayor’s chief of staff and a group of supporters ranging from faith community leaders to the head of the local police union.

How is an “executive mayor” different from a “strong mayor”?

Strong Mayor

Initially – in a 2008/09 version of the strong mayor initiative – the city charter would give the mayor greater responsibility in some areas: He would create the budget, hire and fire the city manager and charter officers, and he would have some veto authority.

It also reduced the mayor’s responsibility in other areas: He would no longer be a member of the council, he would have no vote in council matters, and he would need council approval for appointments such as city manager and charter officers.

The 2008 strong mayor plan ultimately failed because the courts ruled that the changes it proposed were too broad to simply be amendments to the city charter, and therefore could not be put on the ballot by petition signatures.

In 2010, another attempt was made to get a strong mayor initiative on the ballot, but that attempt also failed. Proponents of the initiative wanted the city attorney to draft the formal language, but the City Council voted 7-2 to deny the request.

Aside from slight variations between the two, key aspects of the proposed strong mayor system include:
* Concentrates responsibility: one man, one plan – the mayor runs the city with the help of a city manager/administrator
* Concentrates authority: strengthens the influence of the mayor’s office
* Splits efficiency: council sets policy, but mayor takes all the heat if policy is not implemented efficiently
* Concentrates power: mayor is chief executive, city manager serves lesser role under the mayor

The 2008/10 versions would also have required a ninth council district to be added – which would most likely have thrown a wrench into the redistricting process.

Executive Mayor (a.k.a. the Checks and Balances Act of 2012)

The newest iteration of charter reform hangs on to some key provisions of the first versions and lets go of some others – an attempt, proponents say, to satisfy naysayers and create a broader appeal.

The Checks and Balances Act still proposes the mayor as chief executive – who would propose the budget, nominate a city manager and step down from the current voting position on the council.

The mayor would also get the limited veto power established in the first versions as well as being required to deliver an annual state of the city report.

Gone from the executive mayor proposal, however, is the power to hire and fire charter officers, such as the city attorney and city clerk, as well as hiring and firing assistant city managers and department heads – those powers would remain with the city manager as they do in the current manager-council system.

What’s new with the Checks and Balances Act? The creation of an ethics and transparency portion and the creation of an independent redistricting commission.

The ethics and transparency portion of the proposal still needs a little work – as in, specifics of how a new ethics review committee would be selected and what shape any “sunshine ordinances” would eventually take.

Still, the ideals are included in the proposal and proponents say the details would be hammered out with public input, which is more than the current charter specifies.

An independent redistricting commission – modeled after the state’s commission – would have another 10 years to take shape since the next redistricting process won’t take place until 2021.

But, proponents of the plan say it’s important to include the commission in charter reform measures now, while memories of the 2011 redistricting debacle are still fresh in voters’ minds.

Key aspects of the Executive Mayor/Checks and Balances Act:
* Streamlines responsibility: more direction comes from the mayor, more direct accountability for successes and shortfalls
* Realigns authority: mayor’s role becomes more administrative, but council has authority of approval
* Concentrates efficiency: mayor is executive branch, council is legislative branch, each with ways to “check” and “balance” the other
* Separates power: mayor and council have separate and different roles, each is accountable to voters

One thing the Checks and Balances Act offers that previous versions did not is a sunset date – voters would have to actively reaffirm their choice of a strong mayor government in the 2020 election. Otherwise, the system would automatically revert to the current manager-council system at the end of that calendar year.

Although prior versions of the strong mayor initiative failed, it could be said that they failed primarily to have an opportunity to face the voters. Had either of those proposals made it to a ballot, what would the outcome have been?

That is the question proponents of the executive mayor plan want to have answered in June.

The city attorney and the mayor’s chief of staff, Kunal Merchant, are each slated to give an analysis of the Checks and Balances Act to the City Council Tuesday.

The council may vote to put the proposal on the June ballot, or they could ask for adjustments to the proposal and ask for staff to report back at a future date. In either case, Tuesday’s meeting will be a chance to see if – and how – government responds to a call for change.

Read the Checks and Balances Act proposal – including the draft language submitted to the city attorney for review – HERE.

Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.