Interesting read in SNR today by Cosmo. Everything that could be exposed to revision with a charter commission. http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/snog/blogs#BlogPost-5107298 Police & Fire may be concerned that their collective bargaing agreement could be rivised, especially in light of the fact that people like Tyndale, who don't live in the city, can't participate. Something else that Cosmo pointed out, the schools and the thje way they are governed. Imagine this mayor and his spouse attempting to open that up, especially with her new Non Profit education reform "Student First" Interesting year ahead!

Back at You, Girl!! :-)

Rhonda, did you read the Bee article about Darrell? And Tyndale's comment? http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/08/4168924/enigmatic-councilman-a-political.html SPOA was angry at Darrell's vote on the city budget last June. Boss Tyndale's thuggish threat was: "Tyndale says that Fong could start making amends by voting to put Mayor Kevin Johnson's strong-mayor initiative on the ballot in June. Fong says he hasn't made up his mind, but did have a good talk with the mayor on Tuesday. If the councilman continues to buck the union, Tyndale warns, it will find someone to run against him: "If we don't fix the relationship, we don't want him on the council." Who is the community stewart? Tyndale or D.Fong? And a portion of my response to that article... "And to the leaders of SPOA, both Mark Tyndale an former president Brent Meyer....two individuals who don't live in this city....and have on numerous occasions stated how it can be dangerous to live in this city while being a police officer...for both them and their families..... I give you Darrell Fong....as a myth buster! And OMT, For Mr.,non-resident, Tyndale to suggest that charter revision is a bargaining chip: "... Fong could start making amends by voting to put Mayor Kevin Johnson's strong-mayor initiative on the ballot in June." Is insulting to say the least and "flies in the face" of the constitutional process ordained by the State of California. Sorry words from someone sworn to uphold the laws of this state!" That would be Mark Tyndale!

Throughout this debate of spending public dollars simply based on the approval of council has been the underlying question, At what monetary threshold is voter approval required? Our charter and ordinances place excellent retrictions on council needing to approve expenditures by the city manager, when the bill is $100,000 Dollars or more. Here we have a city department, that repeatedly produces dependable annual income for our general fund while at the same time providing stabilization of parking rates in our city. To proceed with the RFP process the city will need to spend 1-2 million unfunded precious dollars of the taxpayer to proceed. The anticipation is to generate a one time cash payment equvalent to About 1/4 Of Our Annual Budget and take it all for a downpayment on a project of highly questinable, if not outright deceptive, proforma. The ramifications of which will be with this city for 50 years. While the life span of any pro-sport arena tends to be 16.5 years on avg. Additionally, the comments from some councilmembers, who voted not to allow a vote of the residents, reflect acknowledgement that the information they have been receiving from the arena shill force is unreliable knowing that there is little support to spend these funds in that manner or more likely that they don't want the parking privatized at all. In a manner like the council restricts the spending by the city manager, it's time the residents restrict the spending by our council at a fixed monetary value. The action last night clearly demonstrated that.

I think Rhonda is correct. The game will become clearer as the filing deadline for candidates approaches. The wildcard now is the charter commission vote. If the voters vote against it, especially in light of what has transpired now for over three years, all of the mayor's arguments for revising the charter go out the window, his or anybody else's version. Will that stop him, especially if he were to gain a majority of support on council? Propably not, his pursuit for the "ring of power" is too great. Meet Mayor Gollum, seeking "his precious".

Under the category of Best Freebie in Sacramento, This gets 5 Stars! Just remember, the museums are free downtown...most parking isn't, unless your walking, riding a bike or using public transit, then you can park your tush anywhere you like!

Agreed, however I would also ask Melissa, are you familiar with all the city's other discount parking services? Especially as it relates to off-street lots and garages? How will those be affected? http://cityofsacramento.org/transportation/parking/offstreetdiscount.html Isn't Sac Press's location right at ground zero? Besides that list, there are the early bird specials, the discount afforded Amtrak riders at the Old Sac Garage just to name 2. Those are all benefits afforded by "Publicly owned Parking" that help stabilize the market rates in the same location...as opposed to 100% predatory rates created by 100% privately controlled parking. We also know that in Chicago for example, On-Street meter enforcement went to 7 days a week 365 days a year along with expanded Meter Enforcement times.

Let's set the record straight, the person who was adamant about not using a charter commission...the original author of SMI 1- Thomas Hiltachk....."Don't use a Charter Commission"....it's on the video of those 2009 City Council meetings. When and/or where exactly did Bill Camp say that? The guy who took SMI-1 to court, and won? I think your comment is the Red Herring!

Rhonda, go back and look at the charter commission's final report of 2009 and their rationale behind not supporting a Mayor/Council form of government...off 11 members it was vote 10-1 against going to an executive (strong) mayor form of governance. http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/documents/CRC_Final_Report.pdf pgs 16-18 of which on pgs 17 & 18 they give 8 strong reasons Here's 3 of them 1. Accountability. At the local level, the existing unified system is more accountable than would be a divided system. Under a divided framework, residents often have difficulty knowing who is actually responsible for a particular decision or policy. This point is well illustrated by the federal system, wherein presidents have often blamed Congress while Congress blames the White House. With a single body being responsible, it is clear that the City Council, of which the Mayor is a voting participant, ultimately is solely responsible for the City's policymaking decisions. Put simply, under a unified system, there is no place to "pass the buck," since all power and responsibility rests with the City Council. 2. Representative and Inclusive. In contrast to the federal and state governments, the decisions of local governing bodies, such as land use and direct public services, affect the daily lives of city residents in a more direct, immediate way. A unified governing body tends to incorporate the most diverse range of opinion, and is therefore more representative of the views of the community as a whole. In contrast, a divided government structure is more likely to result in policy decisions with "winners" and "losers." In the words of the International City-County Management Association ( ICMA), the Council-Manager form of local government "encourages neighborhood input into the political process, diffuses the power of special interests, and eliminates partisan politics from municipal hiring, firing, and contracting decisions." 7. Clear Direction to Consolidated Staff. Divided government results in two staffs, one under the direction of the City Council and another under the direction of the Mayor. An advantage of the existing city unified structure is that there is a single consolidated group of professional staff under the direction of the City Manager, who is responsible to the full City Council. So after getting a smack down by the courts, why didn't KJ and Team End Run go to a constitutionally ordained process? Instead they are again attempting to strong-arm a revision onto the ballot...that they wrote. When you write the rules...who wins?

Issac, that $35,000 appears to have actually been use to pay down Hiltachk's legal bill to Bill Camp. Look at the expenditures for Open Sacramento....on the April-June 2011 460 filing. That $57,079 expenditure was listed as "Office Expenses". However the LLC that it was paid to Client Trust Account of Ellis Lavoie Poirier Steinheimer & McGee, LLP Most likely...Bill Camp's legal bill from his legal team. From the settlement papers: "Attorneys' fees in the amount of $114,158.00, including hours spent on the reply, are appropriately awarded to plaintiff, jointly and severally against both defendants Hiltachk and City 114,158/2=$57,079.00....sound familiar? How's that for transparency...office expenses.....compared to settlement payment. 34-2009-00065404-CU-MC-GDS The strong mayor 1 lawsuit By paying off their existing debts...along with having a number of loans and debts forgiven by the strong mayor 1 backers....the ending balance of that PAC is zero...and they can then cease to exist......of course they re-created themselves as Better Sacramento PAC, So Johnson felt compelled to help pay Hiltachk's half of the legal bill caused by the SMI lawsuit...but not the city's...pretty poor....yet similar to his "loan" to St. Hope following his actions as CEO there which resulted in that fine levied by the US of A. All of the case documents from the previous lawsuit are available at saccourt,ca,gov go to online services, Civil & Probate Documents and Tentative Ruling Viewer, and use the case number provided.

So an independent redistricting commission is a good and transparent thing...yet a city council appointed charter commission or a charter commission created by an election, tasked with revising and updating our charter in a public process.................in a manner ordained by our State Constitution is unacceptable? City ordinances require a thorough vetting by all parties in a public process where all sides of the issue are involved....and open meeting rules prevail. As an example, the medicinal marijuana dispensary ordinance went through numerous stake holder meetings, numerous reviews by the city attorney's office, law and leg, revisions etc. However, a petulant politician can conceive any means, several times now, around the process for charter revision ordained by our State Constitution....wasting time and resources over and over again...and a lawsuit that he and his lost....for not following the rules.....when it comes to revising our city's constitution...We should cave into petulance and tantrums...by someone who can't follow Laws of Governance within our CA Constitution? I don't think so! How much time would have been spent had KJ and Team End Run...simply followed the rules of our state constitution....he actually might of had something to place on the ballot...although in looking at the 2009 Charter Commission's final report...Not what he or his interests wanted!

If they really want to put the voters first, which BTW sounds a lot like that farcical statement from the mayor and ThinkBig's, "the taxpayer comes first" Prove it! Place the public contribution to the arena on the ballot...provide a binding vote on all moneys, assets and proceeds being put forward. And if you really want to change the charter....place a ballot measure for a charter commission formation. You already cost us 18months last time and acrimony not to mention that $57,000 the city coughed up because of your illegal use of the initiative process to put forward a charter revision...that drew us into Bill Camps Lawsuit. BTW did the mayor provide $35,000 to the city like he did towards Hiltachk's legal bill to Bill Camp?

I think they are trying to "hoodwink' us with the 8 year pilot concept....which will be 2020...when the proposal would either sunset or be finalized and approved by voters. Of course we would already have that troublesome 9th council district.....how do you put that genie back in the bottle? I can hear the proponents already...."are you crazy...do you know how much time and effort it would take to reverse course" ? Of course with the mayor's posistion being the main focus & concentration of political fund raising...which I still feel is a primary incentive for someone who loaned his own campaign close to $600K and has easily spent close to $800K not including that pesky little fine to the US of A of over $400K....all for a job that pays $118,000 a year and comes with a $135,000/ year security detail. Where's the Return on Investment...without control of the city manager and the manager's workforce?

Thank You William!!!....Who knew there was a meeting? A public process, using a charter commission, would have been required to abide by the Brown Act. Transparency? What's transparent is that now, the mayor is using his publicly funded staff, to again do an "End Run" around the constitutionally ordained methods for revising a city charter. Hopefully the City Council will stop this poorly orchestrated charade of outreach and support by "Team End Run" in its tracks. "Team End Run" wants to talk about creating an independent, elected redistricting committee...yet run their own little "shell" came when it comes to revising our charter...as opposed to the preferred, constitutionally ordained method of a charter commission. While I applaud the concept of an independent elected redistricting committee....I place a far higher priority on using a charter commission process to review and provide a deliberative, democratic process for any proposal to revise our charter....especially as it relates to our form of government.

As long as you're talking about the arena financing plan.. the largess and sources of the public contribution....and a binding public vote provided to the citizens of the city by the city council....a referendum will have dire consequences for some sitting council people, who aren't currently up for re-election...not to mention those that are! As far as a revision to our charter....go back and read that SMI lawsuit and the CA constitution. Then get the mayor to cough up a similar $35,000 contribution to the city with regards to the legal cost incurred due to his and Hiltach's unconstitutional use of the initiative process to revise a charter...Why are you and the like so afraid of a charter commission? Oh right, I read the conclusions from the last one....you lost on virtually every issue you want to put forward in your newest version of Boss Mayor.

Looks like you and Cosmo, over at SNR, hit the same "wall of silence" over the last couple of days. "Why won't KJ release his strong mayor poll?" http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/snog/blogs#BlogPost-4726063 "I don’t know, because the campaign won’t release the poll. The poll was paid for by the mayor’s re-election campaign–so much for the idea that it’s not about KJ. But after repeated phone calls and emails yesterday and today, to the mayor’s people both inside City Hall and with his campaign, nada. Remember a few weeks back, when Sandy Sheedy took so much "manure" (edited) for her poll showing that voters wanted a say on subsidizing a new Kings arena? The mayor’s supporters attacked that poll and said it was flawed–after she posted the whole thing on her website. By contrast, the mayor wants to play hide the poll. You know what I mean." One More Thing....Charter Revision does not occur due to sleight of hand or opinion poll shopping. The power to propose revisions to a charter lie only in the hands of City Council and/or a Charter Commission. I keep waiting for the local daily to throw the same amount of garbage at KJ & Co's "Team End Run" that they threw at Sheedy's poll, asking residents if council should provide residents a vote on any public contribution to the arena plan.....while at the same time pointing out the process ordained by the State Constitution.....crickets! Nope their editorial board ran an editorial on Thurs the 22nd...saying a June Vote on a Strong Mayor proposal was the way to go.... to date....not vetted, not actually written, not looked at by council and definitely not put forward by a charter commission....although it did share some similarity to 1 member's view of the 2009 charter commission....1 of 11 appointed people. No still means no, Boss Johnson aka "End Run Johnson" http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/no-still-means-no-boss/content?oid=4715831 Thanks for the effort Issac!

Does the mayor actually pay attention to the discussions and staff reports that are being delivered by city staff to the council with regards to the loooooooong term leasing of the city's public parking assets? Does he think he can pull-off a 72 Hr, behind the scenes swindle as did Daley in Chicago? No mention of the restrictions associated with the money collected for on-street meter parking, that would make the viability of leasing them to a private vendor highly questionable. The 50+ million dollar debt associated with the existing garages....that must be paid off before any "for profit" operation can occur on their premise...or be in conflict with the IRS and the tax exempt status of those properties. There is continually the issue of the existing ARCO loan of about 65 million...that doesn't go away without paying off the investors....and persists until 2027. If the Maloofs default on that one. who is left holding the bag? And what's the position of our loan compared to that of the NBA's? Thanks to that little issue in 2003 carried out by our former treasurer without public scrutiny or council approval....2nd.....all for a mere 5 million dollar additional stake in the team...as security. Ever tried collecting the face value on a 2nd position debt? Talk about a toxic asset. The Parking meter LLC in Chicago will be raising the parking rates again Jan 1st.....their contract allowed them to raise rates every year for the first 5 years. Chicagoan's also pay for street parking 24/7 365 now. The Company just sent the city, two additional bills for last year do to lost revenue.... "There has been plenty of new controversy over the parking meter lease deal recently, after the company submitted a $13.5 million bill to the city for lost revenue from disabled drivers who are able to park for free at parking meters. The company has also billed the city more than $2 million for lost revenue from street closures due to utility work and street festivals that cut off access to metered parking spaces." http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/12/22/parking-meter-rates-set-to-rise-again-in-2012/

Melissa, Department correction. While both metro and Sac Fire are both on duty at all times of the year, and within in the brotherhood of public safety officers provide services and volunteer efforts of a comparable nature, the picture of the fire station with the pumper out front along with Doug Bruce are from The City of Sacramento Fire Dept...not Sac Metro.

So the mayor's supporters want to propose yet, another revision to our charter and throw in an ethics commission and a n independent redistricting commission? How about starting with a proposal to elect an independent charter commission? Oh, and a binding vote on the the city's public subsidy to the hodgepodge arena financing plan! Oh right....can't control, lobby or monetarily contribute to the outcome...in other words...it doesn't work for the mayor's agenda. While one can have a negative inclination to a charter revision, that is crafted without public scrutiny...How does one vote or throw their support behind a revision that isn't written yet....it's but only a proposal in matrix form...no fine print notes or wording. I'm also noticing a list of supporters...that again don't live in the city and/or additionally not even the county. What's up with that?

I wonder what our US Constitution would have looked liked, if after the revolution, one had simply written down his demands for how best to define this country's governance...without any deliberative process...take advantage of their individual popularity at the moment and simply send it to the states to vote on it...period. Revising a charter is akin to revising a state or our US Constitution. What the mayor and his local monied interest and non-resident cohorts keep attempting to avoid is the the deliberative process and simply have our charter changed to their liking via a popularity contest. "Deliberative democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to legitimate lawmaking. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of a law's legitimacy. Deliberative democracy is compatible with both representative democracy and direct democracy." As compared to Despotism....as we saw in SMI I and to a slightly lesser extent in The Lighter Version. When one looks at the current talking points...we again are confronted with not dealing with the non-majority aspect of 8 council districts....now needing nine, yet that's ok with this group, it can be dealt with later....let just get the city under the control of the mayor...Every decision of council would require a super majority...5-3...how convenient. I have a better idea. You want to spend our money and sell/lease our assets for individual self interests...you give us a binding vote on the arena financing scheme that involves all the city's public contribution... You want to change our City's charter and form of government....then place a measure on the June ballot for the formation of a charter commission not a charter revision written at the request of one member of our city council.