Like savvysydsam, I have a child going to a SCUSD school. This is an issue that cuts deep for many who live in the former Sacramento High School area - in a neighborhood with no traditional, comprehensive high school that aims to meet the needs of all our children. Savvysydsam is absolutely correct. At no time was Sacramento High going to be "taken over by the state." But as Mark Twain once said, "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its shoes on."

You're absolutely right. Anyone who wants to read up on the Bloomberg project can find a brief synopsis here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/05/20/32nyc_ep.h28.html I'll leave it to the reader to identify frightening parallels.

"accountability" = "writing a check when I screw up is the same as never having done anything wrong" Brilliant, William.

I, for one, would love to hear more about the "truth of Kevin Johnson's record."

You, Jim, are a troll. I vote not to feed you any longer. Have a great weekend.

No. I agree that both will fail due to voter confusion, which is most unfortunate.

Jim: All of the information I provided can be found in plain sight on the City of Sacramento website, which I have a feeling you are well aware of. I'm not editorializing. I believe in solutions that represent the needs of our diverse community. Sacramento is one of the most diverse cities in the country. That isn't a buzz-phrase. It is a fact. Your blase tone degrades the rich cultural and historical heritage of this city in an effort to degrade valid opinion. We get the government we deserve. If the community is unwilling to remove elected officials who do not listen to them, then they are as at fault as the officials themselves.

I am from Oakland and I agree with your first statement. Willie Brown and Jerry Brown have done amazing things for the cities they governed. Your second statement, regarding Gavin Newsom, is exactly why we must reform our government in a way that ensures accountability regardless of the leader. The ability to govern effectively is linked to the quality and character of a leader. The system must have checks and balances in place to protect us from leaders who have neither.

Tom - Your last point is one we actually both agree upon.

Simply because someone disagree with you, Jim, doesn't mean they should be fired for a "flawed evaluation of the initiative proves her political intention." That line of thinking is exactly why I am concerned about handing the authority to ANY mayor to simply fire city attorneys who disagree with his politics... To be clear - I am not against putting this flawed initiative on the ballot. It does rightfully deserve to be voted upon. I will exercise my rights as a voter and vote against it. I do attend the Charter Committee meetings. In fact, in the past, I have brought my seven year old along so that she can learn about governance and how important concepts like "due process" are. I fully expect the Charter Committee to make a suggestion to the City Council and, from there, I expect a competing initiative to surface. I also fully expect to make public comments at that time. My frustration is with the lack of time between the Committee's report and the June 2010 election. This leaves little time for appropriate public debate on an important issue.

Ronald - Aren't glaring problems with only 5 of the 16 elements cause enough for concern? I was looking forward to further research and find it disappointing that they will have less time in which to complete it. Regarding your critique of Teichert's comparisons: You're correct. Some cities do elect individuals in to those seats. If the language of the so-called "Strong Mayor" proposal suggested that the city attorney become an elected position, I would find that acceptable. Allowing voters to elect the city attorney ensures accountability. However, it does not. The "Strong Mayor" proposal removes accountability and does not address ways to restore it. Teichert's comparisons draw distinctions between accountable systems of governance and a proposal that is flawed by design. While there may be some portions of the proposal that have merit, it is too inherently flawed to be seriously considered.

Jim... See above. Perhaps you missed my comparison on the intent of the proposal vs. the other functioning, accountable Strong Mayor systems in California. I assure you - I've read the proposal. Your usage of offensive clichés and bullying doesn't change the facts. The Strong Mayor proposal that is to be placed on the June 2010 ballot does not follow the lead of other Strong Mayor systems in the state. The proposal was so poorly written, it will require a second ballot initiative or a court order to fill in the gaping legal holes. Sacramento deserves better. Let's give the community the opportunity to address real reform.

In response to Tom Runge... Unfortunately, the Charter Review Commission has no funding to support any outreach program whatsoever. There are no paid volunteers visiting community meetings and standing in front of supermarkets to ensure that Sacramento voters are aware of the work the Charter Review Commission is doing. All that aside, the job of the Charter Review Commission is to make a suggestion to the council based on their research of other Strong Mayor systems in California. After that time, it was the council's intent to solicit public opinion on a potential initiative and systemic reform based on the Charter Commission’s suggestion. The decision to put the initiative on the June 2010 ballot cuts short the Charter Commission’s research and review process as well as the allotment of time the council can solicit public comment. Since when do research and due process “muddy the waters?” The work of the Charter Review Commission combined with council debate and a solid public vetting have the potential to pave the way for true systemic reform.

Priscilla: If Kevin Johnson was my brother, my best friend, or even my husband, I would still demand that any reform to our city governance system be comprised of basic checks and balances. This “Strong Mayor” proposal doesn't offer real reform. As a result, I would oppose it regardless of who was sitting in the mayor's seat. This “Strong Mayor” proposal is so far detached from the functioning and accountable Strong Mayor systems that it claims to emulate that it hardly deserves the title. I am an advocate of community collaboration, public discourse and a well vetted reform initiative that meets the needs of Sacramento now and paves the way for a successful future. This is not that. And that has nothing to do with Kevin Johnson.

Marion: You said that "those closest to the mayor may see this as urgent, hoping that if and when Sacramento has a 'Strong Mayor,' Kevin Johnson will be elected to that position." It is important to note that If the Strong Mayor initiative is passed by voters in June 2010, the changes will immediately take place. Kevin Johnson WILL immediately become a "Strong Mayor." One of many suggested changes to the proposal was that, if passed, the reform should go in to effect during the NEXT elected mayoral term. However, the authors of the initiative would not budge. They wanted the Strong Mayor system to apply to this, Kevin Johnson's first, mayoral term. It is important to note that when Jerry Brown ran for mayor of Oakland, he made clear his intentions to reform the city governance system. Concurrent with his mayoral run, an initiative to reform the system and create a "Strong Mayor" form of governance was placed on the ballot. Voters approved both and, as a result, Jerry Brown began his term under a "Strong Mayor" system. Where Jerry Brown was above board and clear regarding his intentions, Kevin Johnson was not. The Strong Mayor initiative was filed only 8 days after he took office. He did not campaign on the initiative. His intentions were not and are not clear. This is only one of many strong concerns I have regarding the proposal and that is to speak nothing of the flaws inherent to the bill itself.

Steve: You suggested that in reading the Strong Mayor proposal one would see that it “provides checks and balances, just like those in San Francisco and Oakland.” Either you’ve not read the proposal yourself or your comment was intended to be misleading. Assuming the latter, I thought I would share a few of many important difference between THIS Strong Mayor proposal and the systems currently in place in Oakland, San Francisco and across the state. 1) In the “Strong Mayor” initiative, the mayor’s proposed budget is automatically effective if council fails to approve or override the mayor’s proposed budget by the beginning of the fiscal year. This is not the case in Oakland or San Francisco. In fact, of California’s top ten cities, only Los Angeles allows this. 2) The initiative gives power to the mayor to appoint and remove the city treasurer. Again, this is not the case in Oakland or San Francisco. Only L.A. and San Diego operate in this manner. 3) The initiative proposal gives power to the mayor to appoint and remove the city clerk. Yet again, this is not the case in Oakland or San Francisco. Only L.A. operates in this manner. 4) The initiative gives power to the mayor to appoint and remove the city attorney. Not one of the top ten cities in California gives this type of unchecked authority to the mayor. 5) The initiative would also give the mayor power to select and remove subordinate city staff. Not one of the top ten cities in California allows this. 6) The proposal would give the mayor power to select and remove department heads. Only Los Angeles and San Diego allow this. Again, these are only some of the important differences between the proposed Strong Mayor initiative and the systems currently in place in Oakland, San Francisco and across the state of California. By giving the mayor the authority to select and remove up to 800 city staff, including such essential positions as the city treasurer, city clerk and city attorney, we eliminate vital checks and balances. This type of absolute power lends the way to absolute corruption, cronyism, and opens the door to corruption in determining labor and development contracts. That said, I am an advocate for systemic reform in Sacramento. I am not against a Strong Mayor initiative. I am against this one. This was not created of, for or by the people of Sacramento. It is the poorly drafted brain child of a select few, who did not take in to account the diverse needs of our growing city. As a result, it does not address them. November 2010 would be have been an appropriate amount of time to allow for the crafting of a similar initiative that represented the needs of Sacramento while concurrently maintaining the integrity and accountability of our governance system. By pushing the initiative on to the June 2010, we lose valuable time that could have been collaborating with community stakeholders to develop reform that is truly of, for and by the people of this city.

Marion: Other than Sac Press, where do you live on-line? I was looking for an e-mail to no avail!

New developments? Oh, please do elaborate.

William: You and I are on the same page here, once again. The K street pedestrian plaza project, either through willful abdication or oversight, has never been given a fighting chance. During the weekday, this is a vital footpath for downtown workers. Yes, there is a different story to be told on the weekends. But, this is due in large part to many of the issues that you mentioned. The continued failure to renovate or rebuild several of the dilapidated buildings on K street leaves tourists, suburbanites and local families with a sense of discomfort and concerns regarding safety. Why have no plans been developed to restore, rebuild or repurpose these buildings? Certainly, there are many local businesses that would jump on the opportunity to play a part in revitalizing K street if lease terms provided lucrative incentives in this economic downturn. Finally, I absolutely agree with you regarding the legalization of street entertainment. The presence of entertainers and street vendors is what give cities like Berkeley and San Francisco such a unique and colorful flavor. Their absence is notable on the K street strip and the result is a weekend wasteland. The potential for Second Saturday weekend functions alone is a compelling reason to change the regulations that prevent vendors and entertainers.

Thsas, As a former midtown resident and the former manager of low income apartments, I understand where some of your frustration comes from. Yes, there are homeless people who are drug addicts. Some are alcoholics. By and large, however, this is not the case. Many of our local homeless suffer from a variety of mental health ailments that prevent them from caring for themselves in the same manner that you and I can. As a result of the economic downturn, services for these individuals are drying up, forcing them to fend for themselves. Additionally, prior to the economic downtown, roughly 1 in 50 American children were homeless. Those numbers have spiked up almost 20% percent with some estimating that as many as 30% of the homeless population in California is comprised of children. All that said, keep in mind that once your garbage can is placed on the sidewalk for collection or in a communal bin, it is no longer your "private property." It is considered discarded or abandoned. Law enforcement, in particular, operates on this assumption when searching through trash receptacles for evidence. The items we so often take for granted such as half-eaten food, old clothing, unused electronic equipment, well-worn household items....These items are vital resources to the families living on Sacramento's streets. The assumption that any and all scavengers are drug and alcohol abusers is as short-sighted as the assumption that every person who works a 9-5 is not.