Tag Cloud
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Strong mayor progresses, questions remain
by Cheyenne Cary, published on July 8, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Storyline: City hall
Loading images
Two weeks after taking office in December, Mayor Kevin Johnson launched a ballot reform initiative to expand the executive powers of the Sacramento mayor, suggesting that enhanced executive powers would make city government more efficient and accountable. It would also make him one of the more powerful executives in any California city.
Throughout its short, tumultuous life, the so-called "strong mayor initiative" has been praised or criticized by citizen groups as either a democratizing modern reform or a gateway to tyrannical government.
Last Friday, the primary group promoting the change, Sacramentans for Accountable Government, presented City Hall with a petition to put the initiative onto the 2010 ballot; by the group's figures, it was signed by more than 50,000 city residents. Others have come out in strong opposition, including Stop the Power Grab, a citizen group started this January. The Sacramento City Council formed an 11-member Charter Review Committee in February to consider the issue, and it has been holding hearings for the last few months.
Sacramento's current council-manager system has been in place since the city charter was drafted in 1920. Sacramento’s position of mayor is essentially just a modestly embellished city council seat. As laid out by the charter, the chief executive officer of Sacramento is actually the city manager, which is an unelected position.
This means that Ray Kerridge, the present city manager, wields most of the powers you would expect of an executive arm of government, including enforcing laws, appointing department directors and proposing the budget.
Under the council-manager system, the city manager is appointed by the city council and serves "at their pleasure," with no term limit until he or she retires or a majority of councilmembers decides to fire him.
In the strong mayor plan, the council-manager system would be replaced by a mayor-council system. That plan installs the mayor as executive of city government, removes him from the city council and gives him a wide degree of political independence. If approved, this measure would give the mayor all the executive powers of the city manager and more.
The mayor could hire and fire department directors, including the city manager, treasurer and attorney. He could also run without term limits and could propose a budget that could only be blocked with council override. The strong mayor initiative also grants the mayor a powerful tool that the city manager doesn't have: veto power over any city council ordinance.
City Attorney Eileen Teichert voiced concern over the initiative's provisions in an analysis presented to the April 20 hearing of the Charter Review Committee.
"Essentially, this proposed strong mayor initiative creates an imbalance of powers," she wrote. "It lacks important checks and balances and blurs the lines of authority and accountability contained in other strong mayor cities' charters."
Over-expanded budget control was a primary concern Teichert listed, as was the strong mayor's comprehensive appointment power that would eliminate intra-governmental checks.
Steven Maviglio, Johnson's volunteer spokesman and a key figure in Sacramentans for Accountable Government, conceded that the plan is a stiff prescription that would give the mayor many powers.
"It depends in how you look at it," he said. "But it's definitely one of the strongest ones out there."
Maviglio also voiced strong disapproval of the charter review committee and dismissed them as being "politically appointed." Each of the 11 members was appointed by a city councilmember, including the mayor, with two other committee members nominated by a subcommittee. "They were put in place by councilmembers who had their views already set in stone," Maviglio said.
Committee Chairman Bill Edgar replied to this claim, "It's simply not true.... Everybody on the committee has an open mind on the matter and everyone is invited to testify." Ultimately, the charter review committee can review proposed changes and make recommendations, but cannot and will not make the definitive choice. That's the job of Sacramento voters.
Strong mayor systems are common to major California cities including San Francisco and Los Angeles. Fresno introduced the system in 1997, while San Diego started its strong mayor system in 2004.
Fresno Bee columnist Jim Bowen wrote this January that the strong mayor system was "one of the smartest things that Fresno voters did," and the initiative's wide passage suggests that Fresnans agreed. Strong mayorship, Bowen writes, "put an end to the confusion of who would control Fresno" and allowed the economic development expertise of Mayor Ashley Swearengin to reign with less resistance.
However, the Sacramento plan would allow for greater mayoral impunity than any of these other cities and should be taken with corresponding gravity.
For many, the question remains: What is Johnson restrained from accomplishing under the current council-manager system? The central benefit of a strong mayor, according to the initiative's author, Tom Hiltachk, is increased accountability.
"A more representative form of city government will lead to a more effective and accountable government," he wrote in the initiative. "If city services are inadequate, citizens should be able to hold their elected representative responsible for such failures.
This still leaves unanswered what issues a stronger [strong?] mayor would be able to address, or for that matter, in what ways the current system is ineffective. Opponents to the measure make almost precisely the same argument for the reverse outcome: A stronger mayor, to skeptics, would be less accountable due to greater political license.
Maviglio has much to say on the strong mayor initiative, but not a lot on what Johnson would actually plan to do with that unleashed power. Under a strong mayor system, Johnson "would be able to get things done," Maviglio said, but those precise "things" weren't quite clear. "He'd put more cops on the street, work for economic development, and support our schools," he said.
Those changes are political bread and butter. A councilmember would risk their public image by opposing any of those reforms. Again, what would a strong mayor do?
The clearest answer may be tighter control over Sacramento's budget, but many argue that enough can be done in the present budget system.
"I have a vision for what I think the city can become," Johnson told The Sacramento Bee last week. "But if I can't allocate some resources toward making that vision happen, then it never will."
Whether a strong mayor in Sacramento is a means to accomplish otherwise impossible goals or merely an end in itself is a contentious point in the ongoing debate. City Hall is presently counting petition signatures and the charter review committee met July 2 to continue discussion in a forum open to the public. According to Edgar, no decisions will be reached until August.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Isn't that what Steve Maviglio said Johnson would do when he was initially running for mayor?
I ran across an interesting article this week. "The Political Response to Urban Growth: Sacramento and Mayor Marshall R. Beard, 1863-1914," by William Mahan, originally published in the Winter 1990/1991 issue of "California History" Magazine.
Mayor Beard was better known as "Boss Beard," and his administration was one of the main reasons why Sacramento revised its charter in 1920 and adopted a council/manager system of government.
The initiative will make our elected officials accountable (both the Mayor AND the city council) instead of putting our city government in the hands of a city manager we don't elect.
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=992498
It's clear the Council set up this commission with the intent to torpedo Johnson's initiative. It's a sad commentary on how insiders make it impossible for ordinary citizens to affect change to their government.
The reporter fails to point out what I told him. Kevin Johnson's vision for Sacramento is outlined in a detailed, 28-page plan distributed during the campaign and available on the website, www.kevinjohnsonformayor.com.
Mr. Edgar, who contributed to Mayor Fargo's campaign and was appointed to her to the commission that gave her pay raises, was a former city manager who clearly favors the strong city manager form of government. I find it near impossible to believe that he is unaware that other commission members voiced their opposition to modernizing city government even before they were appointed. Articles in the Sacramento Bee have pointed this out, and members of local labor unions touted their success in securing appointments to the commission of individuals who indicated to them they opposed the initiative. So much for "open minds."
Speaking of city managers, Steven, care to comment on our current city manager? If he's part of the problem, why aren't you calling him on it?
The notion that the "Charter Commission" proposal will be any less pre-packaged is laughable. Both of these efforts are more about political posturing that any meaningful reform to our form of governance.
Which is a shame, because the Charter does need to be reformed. The Mayor should have worked with the City Council and brought a proposal to the city that everyone could have agreed upon. I predict both of the proposals will be voted down next November.
Interesting how Mr. Maviglio frames his arguments: two people who spoke against the Hiltachk plan are on the commission, and he frames them as being against "modernizing government" because they oppose that particular plan. This limits the definition of "modernizing government" to the phrases he wants people to associate it with--his plan is "modernizing," while any other plan, no matter how it modernizes, is "business as usual." Like Steve always says, the best spin is the truth: take an essentially true statement (two people on the commission didn't like Johnson's "strong mayor" plan) and spin it to mean something completely different (these two people oppose "modernizing government") to suit the needs of the message.
I also note his failure to mention members of the commission who are likely supporters of the plan, like Johnson supporter and Inside Publications publisher Cecily Hastings. However, that doesn't suit the message--and too much mention of conservatives like Hastings' support risks ruining Johnson's image as a liberal.
I'm not a big fan of kabuki theater.
"Questions remain." Uh, yeah. The Johnson Strong Mayor campaign made sure that supporters had no more information than they needed to pick up petitions and go out to collect signatures, with no public forum or open community discussion about what really is at stake here.
It was Sheriff John McGuiness on KFBK, who stated the obvious: there are two separate questions: do Sacramentans want to alter the City Charter to adopt a Strong Mayor system; and IF SO, do we want that Strong Mayor to be Kevin Johnson?
The answer: No, no and no.
This candidate came on as arrogant, unqualified and (to this date) under investigation. The community he purports to serve is still without its (court ordered) comprehensive public high school because he has squatted at his alma mater, as a vanity project and spring board to higher office.
He comes out -- as he did at the Strong Mayor petition kick off -- energetically bounding across stage, back and forth, spewing slogans, as if they have anything to do with each other or with reality.
With all due respect, Mr. M, your role is to come out and translate all the bumper sticker nonsense and direct us to some web site, as if that takes the place of true leadership.
Perhaps it was a mistake that Sacramentans "with an open mind" received emailed invitations to the Strong Mayor Petition Drive Kick Off in the spring. The event was geared more toward those who were already on board and ready to pick up petitions and leave, than those of us expecting some informative presentation from Mayor Johnson on why the Strong Mayor was a good idea.
The materials handed out that night were a bunch of nonsensical talking points on Page One, followed by a rehashed version purported as "Questions and Answers" on Page Three. It was truly Orwellian.
The Mayor arrived and bounded around the stage spouting bumpersticker slogans, as if it was a speech. Saying the word in front of people or handing them a piece of paper with the word "Accountability" on it, is meaningless.
Other recent examples of this cheerleading nonsense (we won't bring up your "if you ain't got nothing to hide" gaffe here):
Regarding public surveillance and ACLU challenges, "Mayor Johnson’s spokesman Joaquin McPeek referred to the cameras as a tool."
"We're going to use every tool in the toolbox to reduce crime in Sacramento, including these cameras, and we can do it without infringing on civil liberties,” McPeek said."
Well, it's all well and good to SAY THAT, but what does that mean?
"I have a vision for what I think the city can become," Johnson told The Sacramento Bee last week. "But if I can't allocate some resources toward making that vision happen, then it never will."
Huh? What? Excuse me?
This is not leadership, it's marketing and sloganeering. If Sacramentans are about to alter the City Charter, it will have to be for some actual REASONS.
Speaking of which, the argument put forth here?
Steve Maviglio: "The initiative will make our elected officials accountable (both the Mayor AND the city council) instead of putting our city government in the hands of a city manager we don't elect."
The City Manager serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council. If they are doing THEIR jobs, the City Manager will do his.
Mr. Burg: If the initiative makes it to the ballot and passes in 2010, the position of City Manager would remain. Kerridge would hold on to his office unless fired, as it would still be an unelected position -- just appointed by the mayor rather than the council. He'd also have significantly less to do while in office, so he may have to get creative to pass the time. Upside: he may start reading SacPress.
Pep rallies are not public information/discussion.
Bumper stickers are not speeches.
Rearranged talking points are not "Frequently Asked Questions" and answers.
"Accountability" is a word, not a reason to change the City Charter.
The Mayor and Council hire and fire the City Manager.
Who's accountable now?
Oh and the historic neighborhoods, north of Broadway, from Downtown to College Greens, still don't have their high school.
http://nf4.netfile.com/pub2/AllFilingsByFiler.aspx?id=1221719
combined with Sacramentans for Accountable Government
http://nf4.netfile.com/pub2/AllFilingsByFiler.aspx?id=5935717
Close to 2 MILLION dollars has been spent to put Kevin into office and promote the two ballot initiatives.
Seeing this in a comment in a previous SACBEE article on Saturday July 4th...I did a little more research.
Who’s $$$ = Sacramentans for Accountable Government
or more to the point who is the $141,000 that funded the initiative campaign-and brought us ARNO consulting and the mercenary signature gathers- the following is the list from the two 460 forms filing-X-ref with the Secretary of State's site for Agent for service -please note , additionally a 20,000 loan from Townsend Raimundo etal...Are these all City of Sacramento Residents? How much has the firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk pocketed for their professional services? How much did Mr. Maviglio? It's all there in the forms...one only needs to modify the document search and run an excel spread sheet.....The best government money can buy!
You also might want to check out
http://www.stopballotfraud.org/merchants
Now for the list..it's not very long...but there seems to be a theme here, that not about everyday John or Jane Q. public, resident citizen of Sacramento
That's All for Now Folks!
Fulcrum Properties Group-Mark Friedman 50,000
West Lakeside LLC- Agent – Angelo K Tsakopoulos 25,000
North Natomas 575 Investors, LLC-Agent-Brian Vail 25,000
California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC 10,000
Capitol Station 65 LLC- now known as Township 9 7,500
CNM Construction Company, Inc. - Agent -Sotiris Kolokotronis 5,000
Fite Properties, Inc-Agent-Peter Halimi 5,000
K. Hovnanian Forecast Homes Northern, Inc.-Agent C. McAlister 2,500
Serna Consulting, LLC-Agent-Phillip R Serna 1,000
Bagatelos, LLC-Agent-Chris Bagatelos 5,000
Bagatelos Family Trust 2,000
Bagatelos Architectural Glass-Nicholas Bagatelos 2,000
Commercial Window Systems-Geoff Bagatelos 1,000
http://www.stopballotfraud.org/merchant/arno_political_consultants
Oh, look...ARNO gave food to homeless people in exchange for ballot signatures! Maybe that's his plan to help the homeless in Sacramento? And it looks like the measure in question was the same electoral reapportionment measure that was worked on by...Tom Hiltachk!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21calif.html?_r=1
In my opinion, he is restrained from taking over the schools. A weak mayor form of government has nothing to do with the city schools. We have an elected school board to oversee our schools. Why is he so gung-ho on this education summit business? He has much bigger fish to fry but he continues to focus on education even though it is not within the mayor's scope of practice.
Mr. Johnson and his cohorts believe in the privatization of public schools. That is Mr. Johnson's claim to fame. As Marion Millin stated earlier, (his schools) are a "vanity project and a spring-board to higher office." Schools are big business and there is a profit to be made off of them (most often in the name of children and quality education). As you may remember, one of the mayor's first orders of business was to become a strong mayor in conjunction with his proposal for a no-bid contract city audit by the firm Alvarez & Marsal. A&M has worked with both Mayor Bloomberg of NYC and Mayor Fenty of Washington DC in their quest to take over the school districts in their cities. A&M was given no-bid contracts worth millions to look at the finances of the NYC and DC public school systems. A&M specializes in mayoral takeovers of schools and the conversion of public schools to private entities such as charter schools. This is right up our Mayor's alley. THERE IS A HUGE SLEF-INTEREST HERE.
Mayor Johnson is following the script of both Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Fenty. He's also using the exact same actors. His girlfriend, Michelle Rhee is the Chancellor of DC Schools and has worked with Mayor Fenty to eliminate the school board. I read an article where Rhee said that in order to take over the schools, she needed to work closely with a strong mayor to back her up. Is the plan for Rhee to return to Sacramento and be the Chancellor of schools here under her boyfriend Mayor Johnson?
I suggest people start looking at who Mr. Johnson is associating with on the schools issue. His speakers at his last education summit have all worked together to promote mayoral takeovers of school districts. Alvarez & Marsal, Michelle Rhee, Wong& Hess. Just a few of Mayor Johnson's cohorts. copy and paste the link below to learn more about Alvarez and Marsal.
http://www.parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=7231
It's all about the schools, folks. It's all about the schools.
Has there been any community or SCUSD discussion of privatization of public schools? Is this something that privatizers and "experts" like Michelle Rhee impose on communities?
When PBS showed Rhee's arrival at the D.C. schools, the slash and burn agenda was as frightening as the "Orwellian" pep rally mentioned before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAHkMwYTTKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bIsyRaiPg0
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec07/dcschools_10-01.html
Now that the school board can no longer be elected at large and are now by district. He can no longer hand-pick who will be on the board. This was a problem for Johnson. How will he continue his con if there is no one there to ignore the problems? Oh, I know, become a strong mayor and get rid of the school board all together! Problem solved.
The privatization of public schools (charters) is a trend now in education circles. It's what they call "education reform". Michelle Rhee and the Mayors of the large cities all follow the same script and use the same speakers, auditors, etc. Actually, it's rather incestuous.
Mayor Johnson is in it neck-deep. He seems to want to stay on script despite his many problems. He's kind of like a bit pull. He doesn't know when to have the good sense to let go.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/07/so-where-exactly-did-lehmans-130.html
The point is that it looks more and more like Alvarez and Marsal is deeply permeated by the same corruption and rot that led to the worst financial collapse of our lifetimes. They need to be kept far away from the city's accounts...unfortunately (probably for the reasons stated above by savvysysydsam) would-be -strong Mayor Johnson seems all too willing to just hand over the books and let them loose.