I agree it would have been nice for the position to be filled by someone from Sacramento, but the search was national. The Mayor and his team hired the person they believed was best for the job. The position was posted on the Mayor's page on the City of Sacramento website (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/mayor/). When the Mayor suggested he's addressed every criticism, he's referring to the process and the merits of the charter. Maybe you're right about the Mayor not being qualified, but the initiative should not be about him. If the voters decide they want charter reform for Sacramento, the new governance structure will be in place long after Johnson leaves office.

You are one person, Isaac. And while your efforts are to be commended, the goal of the Chief Service Officer (who is being paid not by the City of Sacramento, but the Rockefeller Foundation) is to spread volunteerism throughout the city and region, quantify the work of the volunteers and make large-scale impact. You're absolutely correct about the city's inability to provide the services we pay for with our taxes. That's precisely why it is important to empower volunteers to supplement the city's efforts. Again, I'm sure you'd be able to accomplish amazing feats with your cans on wheels, but think how much more we'd accomplish collectively if there thousands or hundreds of thousands of people just like you.

No. The Mayor conducted a 40 minute press conference on volunteerism. After five or six questions on volunteerism, Ben Adler asked a question about charter reform. Two completely separate issues.

You've missed the mark by a mile, David. Allow me to retort. "Then he told The Sacramento Press: "The agents of status quo — a small group of people — are still dictating what happens in our community." Union leadership is a small group of people -- but they have a lot of money and a lot of power. With the exception of Rob Fong, each of those staunchly opposed to the initiative is a union pawn. Do you think it was just a coincidence that in the final week of Ray Tretheway's bid for re-election, Tretheway received $50K from labor unions AND held a press conference accusing the Mayor and others of quid pro quo politics? "Then he went to a fundraiser...for the strong mayor initiative." The fundraiser was scheduled a month prior to the vote. The hosts wished to move forward because they believe in reform and agree Johnson and other proponents should push forward. "On the other hand, the mayor's office has resisted releasing any explicit proposal." That was the purpose of the motion, David. The Mayor needed five votes to direct the City Attorney to draft the language for the initiative. You don't have details because Council did not allow the City Attorney to move forward. "And they have rebuffed requests by Sacramento Press reporter Kathleen Haley to see a copy of an earlier draft of the proposal. So much for transparency." As was told to Bill Camp -- and then Kathleen Haley -- there is no earlier draft of the proposal. "He is, in fact, showing that he doesn't know how to use the power he already has, which is considerable." Your position requires further explanation. Do you "in fact" know what "power" he has? Consider the work he's done on homelessness, arts, green, volunteerism, the entertainment and sports complex task force, progress with Westfield, lobbying on behalf of the city for stimulus dollars and education, then reconsider your assertion. "if he had shown a little humility along with his drive and focus, well...who knows what he might have accomplished?" Council's opposition to the Accountability Plan of 2010 has nothing to do with Johnson, nothing to do with his pride or humility, and nothing to do with any other specious argument they've made publicly. Council is opposed to reform. They do not want accountability. And they do not want anyone putting their part-time, $60k/year jobs in jeopardy. I suggest you change your expectation. Heather Fargo's campaign slogan was "Progress." A better fit would have been "Maintenance." If a Mayor's job is to maintain -- keep everything even kiel -- then this city should have re-elected Fargo. Things wouldn't be great and they wouldn't be terrible; they'd just be ok. And if that's good enough for everyone, in 2012, elect another Fargo. But no progress -- real progress -- will ever be made without first shaking things up. Council dissension is a good thing. There needs to be a clear distinction between the status quo and those who support reform. It is just a matter of time before the "maintenance" people fade away.

That's Einstein's definition of insanity; not Franklin's. The public hasn't been excluded. There has been over 18 months of dialogue. Council is being excluded either. It will take five votes to put the proposal on the ballot. "His proposal" is the language the reporter chose to use -- but clearly inaccurate.