Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
Committee to study "strong mayor" format for Sacramento
by Kathleen Haley, published on May 6, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
A committee tasked with examining the city government’s structure and functions is starting to address the contentious issue of whether Sacramento’s mayor should have more power.
Sacramento’s 11-member Charter Review Committee, which began meeting last month, is studying the rules in the city’s charter. The charter is similar to a constitution, the city explains.
One of the items on the committee’s list is the idea of changing city government to a “strong mayor” format that would give the mayor more responsibilities. The committee will contrast the "strong mayor" format with the city's existing "council-manager" system.
JoAnn Fuller, a committee member and associate director for the group California Common Cause, noted that the committee will not immediately address the “strong mayor” issue. The committee wants to present information to the public on the issue so community members can respond, she said.
She acknowledged that the “strong mayor” plan is “certainly a large issue on the agenda of the committee.”
While the committee is not yet diving into the topic, it is starting to plan how it will approach the issue. Charter Review Committee members Bill Edgar and Bob Murphy are suggesting that the committee study the “strong mayor” idea through a series of presentations on cities that changed the structure of their government.
“I believe an organized set of presentations should include representatives of cities in both California and other states that have converted both to a strong mayor and/or to a council-manager government,” according to an e-mail between Edgar and Murphy in a committee report.
A list of topics the committee will address can be read here.
The committee’s next two meetings are scheduled for May 7 and May 18, and will take place at City Hall, 915 I Street. The May 7 meeting begins at 6 p.m. All committee meetings are public.
By mid-December, the committee will make suggestions for possible changes to the charter. Sacramento voters have the final word on any charter changes – proposed changes go before the public on a ballot.
Fuller noted that the committee hasn’t yet finalized an outreach strategy, but she said her vision would be for the committee to “get out in the neighborhoods.”
Sacramento’s government is run in a “council-manager” format.
With the Charter Review Committee analyzing the “strong mayor” format, there are now two separate actions taking place.
The Charter Review Committee is studying the issue, and a separate campaign is promoting a “strong mayor” government for Sacramento. The campaign, Sacramentans for Accountable Government, is planning to bring the issue before voters. Mayor Kevin Johnson backs the campaign.
In February reports, City Attorney Eileen Teichert addressed the issues raised by the campaign’s December proposal to put the “strong mayor” government style on an upcoming ballot.
Teichert noted that the proposal would give Johnson numerous powers.
“A true strong mayor system grants its mayor budgetary powers, appointment and removal powers, management of day-to-day city affairs, power to propose legislation and veto power,” Teichert states in a report. “The Strong Mayor Initiative includes each of these powers and more.”
By contrast, the city’s current “council-manager” provides the city manager with considerable powers. The current format is a mayor and eight council members, “with the city manager as the chief executive officer of the city who shall be responsible for the effective administration of the government,” Teichert wrote.
Acting city spokeswoman Wendy Klock-Johnson notes that the “strong mayor” campaign is still alive. The campaign must submit signatures from 15 percent of the city’s registered voters by June 29.
The Sacramento Bee reported Wednesday that the Sacramentans for Accountable Government group has a total debt of $94,992.72.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1837243.html
Apparently the strong-mayor supporters are a bit weak on cash. Also mentioned in the article is the strong-mayor initiative's author, super-conservative attorneyTom Hiltachk, who is already accusing the new charter review committee of unfair bias--perhaps because not all of the appointees to the charter review committee support the strong-mayor initiative?
Secondly, Johnson is hiding behind the budget issue, saying that he will not bring the charter initiative to the voters because he is 'too busy dealing with budget issues'…even though they claim the signatures have been certified…In my opinion he should bring the matter to the voters, otherwise the charter commission, an unelected, and very biased body, is going to really screw things up in Sacramento for quite some time.
Johnson needs to stop making lame excuses for keeping the issue off the ballot...
Under section 61(J) and section 111 of the city charter..it is the CITY MANAGERS job to prepare the budget!
If you want to PROVE the need for a strong Mayor…lay it all on Kerridge’s feet…let him fulfill his charter obligations, even though he is not accountable to the public....Let him be the lighting rod for our budget problems...fire him if he can't straighten things out.
All Johnson's job is to review the proposed budget and vote yea, or nay… not get involved with writing the budget. If I were advising him, I would tell him to point this out publicly…that his role in the budget process is weak, and an unelected person has been given the duty to deal with the budget... this would reinforce the need to pass the strong mayor proposal.
Given the nature of politics in Sacramento I support the strong mayor position 100% (even though I don't particularly care for much of Johnson's actions while in office) it does make our Mayor accountable and gives him power akin to being the CEO of our city, which is what a Mayor is supposed to be. The Dems and the real power that controls the council thrive on our weak mayor system. I also believe that a strong mayor position could lead to the election of a candidate who is fiscally responsible.
Sacramento is a big city, we are the capitol of a state that is the 6th largest economy of the world, we need to stop playing small town politics and evolve ourselves into the big city we want to be, this will never happen unless we have a strong Mayor. A strong Mayor position would be an incentive for reformers and fiscal conservatives to run for office, and they could get elected...this makes those opposed to the idea (radical leftist's clinging to power, lobbyists and very powerful developers) very fearful, they could lose control of THEIR city.
Maviglio, I could do your job in my sleep.
I wonder if Hiltachk is calling into question the appointment of Cecily Hastings (of "Inside Publications") to the Charter Review commission? She is a big supporter of Johnson and the "strong mayor" initiative--or maybe he doesn't consider her "biased" because she agrees with his position?
GadGalt: A "strong mayor" position would make Sacramento even more beholden to developer interests, because in order to get elected and stay in office, the mayor would have to have the support of the folks holding the purse strings. The council/manager system of government was created modeling the corporate world: the council and mayor are the analogs to the Board of Directors of a corporation, with the mayor as president of the board, and the city manager is the CEO. If the CEO does an unsatisfactory job, he can be fired by the council--not at the next election, but AT ANY TIME.
Take your own advice and follow the money: the "strong mayor" initiative is financially backed entirely by developers!
I have a close family member who is the Chairman one of the largest corporations in the world. We have spoken regularly about the morons who sit on Boards.
Boards in today's corporate world are mostly ceremonial...they have almost nothing to do with the budgets or the management of the company. The CEO is the final word on budgets...the CFO reports to him. The Boards only get involved when there is a crisis and have no other option but to take action, otherwise they do almost nothing. Just try naming a corporate Board on Wall Street, in the banking industry or in the auto industry who fulfilled their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders...
If a Board fired a CEO who had any Cred with the Street...their stock would drop by 30% the next day. Corporate CEO's are superstars and their presence is often the only real value in some corporations.
The Strong Mayor initiative would allow for a truly strong mayor to run for office. Both Jerry Brown AND Willie Brown became strong mayors through the electoral process....while I don't agree with their politics..they did amazing things for Oakland and San Francisco because they had the power to move mountains.
And BTW, the Board of Directors of a city are the People.
A nine-member city council isn't all that unwieldy--and keep in mind that each councilmember represents and directly serves around 50,000 people. Reducing the number of council members would increase the workload of each council member, and limit their level of direct accountability to the council district they serve. The council members work directly with their districts, while the Mayor is more of a "floater" with no district under the current system.
Even if the Strong Mayor initiative were to pass, the council would still have their votes on issues.
I am the one of the loudest protesters you will ever find over the influence of developers...I hate them with a passion...I want them tarred and feathered. Their influence is a separate issue from the Strong Mayor initiative. Currently the developers own ALL of our elected officials on the state and local level. Only campaign finance reform will limit their influence....or finding INDEPENDENT candidates who have integrity to withstand their payoffs.
Johnson's 'power grab' proposal, fronted by 'Sacramentans for Accountable Government', is a big wet kiss to and funded by real estate developers and corporate donors to Johnson's campaign, intended to enhance the ability to move backroom deals and promises out of view of broader oversight by a council. 'SAG' is headed by Tom Hiltchak of the Bell, McAndrews law firm, which provides 'SAG' a physical address, which firm also figures prominently among GOP insiders, and has provided council regarding such insidious practices as, for example, Bush/Cheney electoral lapses and dirty tricks.
Johnson himself has proved he cannot handle authority. His St. Hope organizations, aka pyramid schemes, have attempted to grow their way out of massive debt, including secret loans from SCUSD intended to bridge a porous patchwork of cash flows, as yet unrepaid, fines for negligent management of properties and hiring of unqualified teaching staff, year over year deficits, and now the settlement of allegations of mismanagement of federal grants. And then there are all those pesky allegations of child sexual abuse, only two of which have surfaced publicly, with rather lurid backstory, and with more just waiting in the wings to emerge...
This proposal and its proponents don't even pass the smell test, let alone any semblance of thoughtful consideration in their wanton pursuit of more greed at the expense of a duped Sacramento. They trade on KJ's faded celebrity appealing to ephemerals of a stupid electorate who follow bright shiny objects to their detriment.
Hiltchak now is rattling sabres against those who seek to stop this proposal by demanding disclosure of pre-appointment conversations with those chosen to consider a broader scope of needed city charter revisions on the premise that some of those chosen might be biased against the power grab proposal. Now, as a lawyer he should know better, but perhaps this is indicative of his (lack of) competence, given how clumsily this proposal has been trotted out. Such demands for disclosure cut both ways.
Where are the antecedant conversations, notes, or other records that brought about the power grab proposal ??? What was its TRUE intended purpose -- and not the mishmash pablum put forward by the 'SAG' group ??? Who is paying the salaries of KJ's 'volunteer' staff, and why haven't these payments been made public ??? Just who pays Steve Maviglio to act as KJ's mouth ???