Ben Ilfeld comment-14712 2009-09-30T17:09:38Z 2009-09-30T17:09:38Z Please express your views. I'm all for it. Our goal is to have a lively debate. The best way to do that is to create an open space for everyone to express their views. This conversation is a perfect example. You can always contact me at support@sacramentopress.com if you want to discuss a particular comment. Ben Ilfeld 2009-09-30T17:09:38Z CurtisParkDuo comment-14692 2009-09-30T04:28:18Z 2009-09-30T04:28:18Z Mr. West: I checked your Sacramento Press profile to give you the benefit of the doubt before I commented. Just to set the record straight, you haven't identified yourself as the mayor's brother in any of the stories you've commented on. It'd be nice if you set up your profile for full disclosure. Here's a link: http://www.sacramentopress.com/user/RonaldWest. SM has a great one-line disclosure on his page: http://www.sacramentopress.com/user/StevenMaviglio. CurtisParkDuo 2009-09-30T04:28:18Z bbbbmer comment-14686 2009-09-30T00:40:08Z 2009-09-30T00:40:08Z 'Comments' are 'obviously opinion pieces' -- yet you have removed several of mine, for nothing more than expressing my views, and with significantly greater factual basis than the latitude you allow KJ and his tribe of suckups, sycophants, and siblings... Your OBVIOUS hypocrisy is exposed, and will continue to be, here, and elsewhere... Again, shame on you! bbbbmer 2009-09-30T00:40:08Z Marion Millin comment-14684 2009-09-30T00:32:42Z 2009-09-30T00:32:42Z The Comments section provides some balance when KJ's brother or Mr. Machiaviglio show up "Setting the Record Straight On It's Head." Marion Millin 2009-09-30T00:32:42Z Ben Ilfeld comment-14683 2009-09-29T23:49:08Z 2009-09-29T23:49:08Z This is obviously an opinion piece and we treat it as such. Ben Ilfeld 2009-09-29T23:49:08Z fifthgensacramentan comment-14663 2009-09-29T22:18:38Z 2009-09-29T22:18:38Z Perhaps the use of the word "Straight" in this fictional title line could be visibly represented by the 1000 Block of Lombard St. in San Francisco. Since "reform" is being tested as the new buzz word...it would be prudent to have a discussion about the legalese difference of "revision" vs "amend" as spelled out in the State constitution with regards to city and county charters. We have heard some of the chatter about prop 8 not meeting that threshold with regards to revising vs amending the state constitution, however with regards to local goverments: our state constitution article 11 sec3(b) (b) The governing body or charter commission of a county or city may propose a charter or revision. Amendment or repeal may be proposed by initiative or by the governing body. So what's the difference? Here's one opinion of "revision" at the state constitutional level... “far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan,” or, stated in slightly different terms, that “substantially alter[s] the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution.” fifthgensacramentan 2009-09-29T22:18:38Z bbbbmer comment-14669 2009-09-29T21:43:02Z 2009-09-29T21:43:02Z Obviously the editors didn't scrutinize this 'article' for veracity or fairness, and have thus allowed KJ's brother/mouthpiece to, for want of a more apt word, LIE about those of us who stand firmly against this mayor's wanton grab for power and the corrupt interests that brought the SMI measure into being.... Your little media outlet is becoming known for acting as a virtual front for this mayor's pathological aggression. I should think you'd be ashamed of such a role. How hungry you must be to sink so low... Shame on you... bbbbmer 2009-09-29T21:43:02Z Marion Millin comment-14618 2009-09-29T05:37:11Z 2009-09-29T05:37:11Z Great comments, Paul Cox. As with Stewart, Colbert, Maddow, sometimes the absurdists are the only ones to cut through the crap. Marion Millin 2009-09-29T05:37:11Z Marion Millin comment-14617 2009-09-29T05:35:06Z 2009-09-29T05:35:06Z Ketchup is not a vegetable. 2 + 2 = 4. KJ is not Obama (as you have pointed out here before). St. HOPE is not Sac High. Payoffs are not innocence. Mr. Burg, your fact-based comments make one wonder even more why the Mayor's spokesmen want to come to SacPress, insult the public, get us arguing about which side they part their hair on, while they make false claims, without ever actually posting substantive and informative articles or comments. It's all Flim, Flam, Thank You, Ma'am. Clearly the Mayor's brother has been sent out with a new script -- "reform" is the new "accountability" -- but why do they continue to think the public will fall for this? Is it effective for them in the one on one meetings, the pep rallies with Johnson cheerleading like he did at the kickoff for the SMI petition drive? Are they hoping enough people will pick up mindless phrases to repeat, to smooth the way toward election day? My current favorite nonsense? I can't decide between: "Modernize or business-as-usual. That's the whole debate" or "The Strong Mayor Initiative. It's nothing exotic." Now THERE'S a bumpersticker. (How is "exotic" now a "dirty" word? -- it's hard to keep up..........) Your comments -- and this one in particular -- need to be recorded as ARTICLES on SacPress. Please. This one was particularly excellent. Thank you. Marion Millin 2009-09-29T05:35:06Z Marion Millin comment-14616 2009-09-29T05:06:59Z 2009-09-29T05:06:59Z Mr. West, rather than visit SacPress without revealing your personal and professional relationships to Kevin Johnson, to accuse those who don't support his SMI of "lying" and to test out the latest set of simplistic talking points, how about YOU and Mr. Maviglio provide solid and verifiable information about, for example, "the system of checks and balances similar to that of our federal government." Rather than you and SM continuing to pretend that this SMI is "the same" as any number of other cities, you come clean about the differences. (Or at least quit lying about that point). Your current supporters (hopefully), the fence sitters and the opponents of a Boss Johnson, would all be interested in contributions from you that were substantive, not merely combative. Marion Millin 2009-09-29T05:06:59Z Marion Millin comment-14615 2009-09-29T04:55:11Z 2009-09-29T04:55:11Z And if they don't disclose it each time, it requires an attentive and informed public to point it out, providing another distraction from the issues, which may why SM does it also. Marion Millin 2009-09-29T04:55:11Z William Burg comment-14614 2009-09-29T03:56:14Z 2009-09-29T03:56:14Z Sunlight is an excellent disinfectant. William Burg 2009-09-29T03:56:14Z William Burg comment-14613 2009-09-29T03:55:28Z 2009-09-29T03:55:28Z Ronald West: A lot of us who post stories that are associated with events we participate in disclose that fact in the individual story, even if we have mentioned it before--rather than assuming that everyone who visits the site has read the entirety of the site and knows who all the players are. William Burg 2009-09-29T03:55:28Z William Burg comment-14612 2009-09-29T03:53:38Z 2009-09-29T03:53:38Z Actually, no, it doesn't, that's another lie. There are term limits for the executive branch, and a judicial branch that is entirely lacking in city government, plus the Senate can impeach the President but "strong mayor" doesn't allow that. Also, with the legally indeterminate "ninth district," the Mayor gets the equivalent of a vote in the Senate, which the President does not, including the ability to vote against a vote to override a mayoral veto. We've done our homework, you're just reading from Steve Maviglio's script. William Burg 2009-09-29T03:53:38Z Paul Cox comment-14604 2009-09-29T00:14:53Z 2009-09-29T00:14:53Z I like how it's obvious that Ronald has been on this board after you and I left our comments, yet strangely no response... Paul Cox 2009-09-29T00:14:53Z izzy comment-14603 2009-09-28T23:57:06Z 2009-09-28T23:57:06Z Mr. West, you certainly drank the kool-aid served up by your brother. It is impossible for you to be unbiased and impartial, as you have a financial stake in his becoming a strong mayor. You even spew the same words...status quo, jargon....gag me. Your brother has way too much baggage from his past indiscretions and illegal activities to ever allow this initiatve to pass. izzy 2009-09-28T23:57:06Z Ronald West comment-14600 2009-09-28T22:54:55Z 2009-09-28T22:54:55Z Yes, history has taught us that "absolutely power corrupts absolutely", however if you read the initiative, you'll find a system of checks and balances similar to that of our federal government. I suggest conducting your own research instead of regurgitating the jargon reflective of the status quo. Ronald West 2009-09-28T22:54:55Z Ronald West comment-14599 2009-09-28T22:49:58Z 2009-09-28T22:49:58Z The Mayor is my brother. I've made this clear in past posts. I am not compensated by the "taxpayer dime." Ronald West 2009-09-28T22:49:58Z Susie Shields comment-14596 2009-09-28T22:20:49Z 2009-09-28T22:20:49Z Ronald is Kevin's younger brother. Same mom, different dads. As usual, Kevin is keeping it in the family. He employs his family and friends on the taxpayer dime. Susie Shields 2009-09-28T22:20:49Z buildrbuz comment-14595 2009-09-28T21:53:16Z 2009-09-28T21:53:16Z "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," and THAT'S the simple truth we are headed for if this Strong Mayor initiative passes. Those who truly love Sacramento and want to see a city that works better for all of us who actually live in the city should make sure that this measure fails by telling their friends to vote "NO" in June. I prefer the "messier, slower" Democratic process of our current system to the Dictatorial "One Man Rule" of the proposed changes to our city charter. I will never vote to consolidate more power in any elected official. buildrbuz 2009-09-28T21:53:16Z William Burg comment-14590 2009-09-28T21:21:18Z 2009-09-28T21:21:18Z "The first lie involves the concept of strong mayor. Opponents want to make charter reform and strong mayor government sound exotic, even dirty. Reality is that 31 of the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. have strong mayors. It's nothing exotic." This statement is a lie. The Sacramento "strong mayor" initiative is not the same as "strong mayor" in other cities. It provides the Mayor more power than in other "strong mayor" cities, with fewer controls: no term limits, no ethics committee, far more control over the bureaucracy. It's custom-designed for dirty politics. Considering this project's main support (wealthy developers), its crafting (a right-wing attorney) and the extraordinarily sleazy firm hired to gather signatures (well-known for lying to people to get signatures, and bribing homeless people with food for their signatures, and still producing large percentages of bogus petition results) it's hard to see how this sort of hinkiness won't be a model for a "strong mayor" if this passes. So yeah, dirty. "Charter reform opponents are trying to scare city employees and their families by saying a strong mayor can fire everybody. Not true. Most city employees are covered by civil service rules and collective bargaining contracts. When it comes to firing people, the answer is simple: no way." This statement is a lie; it implies that city employees cannot be fired for any reason. Civil service rules and collective bargaining contracts allow for firing, and the Mayor will gain that power under this initiative. The Strong Mayor initiative also deletes entirely a clear delineation of who enters into contracts for the city, but the mayor will probably take that power--which means he becomes the signing authority for collective bargaining agreements. More power consolidated in fewer hands. "Finally, reform opponents claim strong mayor revisions blur the lines of authority. The lines could hardly be more blurred than today, when 13 people have senior authority at City Hall, including four charter officers and nine council members. Nobody knows who's in charge -- because nobody is. That's the problem." That's not true either. The council/manager model is a model of the corporate world, with a Board of Directors, a president of the Board, and a CEO. It works well in the corporate world because it lets the Board (or Council) direct policy, with a policy leader (the president of the Board or mayor) to direct the Board. This leaves the CEO (the city manager), a trained professional at running organizations instead of a politician, to run the city. HE CAN BE FIRED AT ANY TIME by the City Council. Veto power is meaningless in this context, because currently the Mayor votes as a member of the same body. The other ridiculous flaw of this initiative is its failure to clearly delineate when the "ninth district" will be created, leaving the Mayor in a position where he can vote for his projects, PLUS have a veto, PLUS the ability to vote against votes to overturn his veto. It turns the concept of checks and balances on its head. The "Strong Mayor" initiative is the reverse of democracy. It is about consolidating power in fewer hands, with only the elites (and certain select friends, like the mayor's brother-in-law) retaining access and favor. William Burg 2009-09-28T21:21:18Z William Burg comment-14589 2009-09-28T21:08:38Z 2009-09-28T21:08:38Z At some point, Ronald K West was the Director of Faculty at St. Hope Academy. So yeah, he works for Johnson. William Burg 2009-09-28T21:08:38Z Marion Millin comment-14581 2009-09-28T21:06:32Z 2009-09-28T21:06:32Z (Intended as a Reply to "thefly": "He is the half-brother of the Mayor and is leading the Strong Mayor effort being run by Sacramentans for Accountable Government' ) If this is about "accountability" and Mr. West is accusing others of lying, his lie of omission puts the lie to his claims. Simple. "That's the whole debate." Choose misleading tactics from those who count on an uninformed public buying their bumper sticker explanations and selling out the community's founding charter document OR Choose accurate information that affects the historic community political process -- which was structured to prevent the sort of Boss Mayor KJ hopes to be -- for long after Johnson is gone. Marion Millin 2009-09-28T21:06:32Z Susie Shields comment-14588 2009-09-28T20:59:22Z 2009-09-28T20:59:22Z Ronald- If you are all in this for the city, why not wait until the next mayoral election? Your brother was not voted in to be a strong mayor. I am certain, with his dismal record as St. HOPE's CEO, people would have thought his election as a strong mayor through more carefully than they did for his weak mayoral role. They knew he had no experience, had a very troubling past, and was a terrible manager *but* he was famous and had name recognition. He's a pretty good cheerleader and media darling *but* he has a legendary reputation as being a bully, has an inability to work well with others, and also had zero experience running a city or even attending city council meetings. I think people felt ok with putting your brother into a role where he couldn't do too much damage and still bring attention to the city. The mayor never once seemed interested in the city of Sacramento before he ran for mayor. Why now? Why the sudden interest now? I think he wants the schools and has got to get the strong mayor passed in order to go there. The national trend of education reform is right up Kevin's alley and I think he thought Sacramento's schools were ripe for the picking. I believe this is all about Kevin and his school agenda, not what's best for the city. What say you? Susie Shields 2009-09-28T20:59:22Z thefly comment-14574 2009-09-28T18:59:02Z 2009-09-28T18:59:02Z he is the half-brother of the Mayor and is leading the Strong Mayor effort being run by Sacramentans for Accountable Government thefly 2009-09-28T18:59:02Z Paul Cox comment-14571 2009-09-28T18:35:33Z 2009-09-28T18:35:33Z You're right, the lines are blurred with the city council! And they're also blurred in congress and the senate, we should take away their power as well! Reform isn't rushed! I mean, just because the mayor started the process immediately after he became mayor and it was put on the ballot before a charter review committee could even begin looking at it...psh...I mean, that's not rushed or anything. And the city manager does work in silence and secrecy! I mean, come on, just because he has to answer to the city council doesn't mean anything! It means that he's scary and going to take over everything! *hides* And just because the mayor can fire the higher up management doesn't mean they'll be beholden to him for their jobs and push through projects for him and thus create a system where he must be pleased in order for them to keep their jobs or anything... psh! And it's not scary that we're having a Strong Mayor Initiative. After all it's in a number of other California cities! I mean granted, it's different from all of them in one way or another, like no ethics committee and the mayor having the ability to fire all staff including the city attorney and others. But I mean...other than that it's exactly the same, while being entirely different. And last, just because the Mayor formed the charter review committee after he'd already placed his initiative on the ballot, and now he isn't listening to their findings and isn't planning on revising the initiative, doesn't mean anything...right? Paul Cox 2009-09-28T18:35:33Z CurtisParkDuo comment-14570 2009-09-28T18:35:12Z 2009-09-28T18:35:12Z Do you work for Johnson? Identify your occupation and/or interest in this issue, and give readers a reason to listen to your opinions. CurtisParkDuo 2009-09-28T18:35:12Z