Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Strong mayor friends, foes react to committee's report
by Kathleen Haley, published on September 18, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
Loading images
The two opposing camps on the "strong mayor" initiative are remaining consistent in their views as they react to the Sacramento Charter Review Committee's draft recommendations.
The panel recommended Wednesday that the city maintain its existing City Council/city manager system of government rather than adopt a "strong mayor" system. The initiative would expand the mayor's job to include the responsibilities of the city manager. The strong mayor initiative will go before voters in June 2010.
Sacramentans for Accountable Government, the group that created the strong mayor initiative, opposes the 11-member committee’s draft recommendations. "Not surprisingly, the do-nothing Charter Commission did nothing,” said Tom Hiltachk, the attorney who drafted the initiative, which is supported by Mayor Kevin Johnson.
An opponent of the strong mayor initiative, SAVE Sacramento (Support Accountability, Voice, and Ethics in Sacramento), was pleased by the initial report. "SAVE Sacramento applauds the open, inclusive, and well-informed process of the Charter Review Commission," said SAVE founder, Sacramento attorney Anna Molander. "These recommendations were made through public deliberation by a diverse group of Sacramentans - not written in secret by an ultraconservative lawyer and paid for by rich, out-of-town developers.”
The group opposes the strong mayor initiative.
Photo: Anthony Bento
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
BTW, the Support Accountability, Voice, and ETHICS in Sacramento group has failed to include an FPPC# on their website so there is no way the people of Sacramento can find out who is funding their operation, a clear violation of campaign finance law. I guess ethics only apply to the other people.
Checked the SOS website today (09/22/2009) FPPC ID #1321298.
Hopefully Mayor Johnson doesn't support the attorney who attacks the Commission members. As he has supported the spokesperson who attacked the city manager, city attorney, city councilmember. My goodness, so now it's the city attorney's who is not qualified, some of the councilmembers can't make a qualified decision and now the commission is "lame" and "do-nothing folks" heck, the list just seems to grow and grow. Surely it can't be a conspiracy. The dream of a strong mayor proposal appears to be turning into a nightmare so many being thrown under the bus. No wonder so many people don't like to stand up and fight and go with the status quo of allowing special interest to control politics, special interest buses are running down folks left and right.
Our city mayor, his attorney (Hiltachk) and his spokesman are so invested in his power play, that they are willing to attack the public process and the public; while strongarming our elected city council officials, punishing those who don't do his bidding and rewarding those who meet his demands; even "stooping so low" as to intentionally mislead the city attorney, council and public, by not revealing that he allegedly "forgave" a loan to his own political team, when the city attorney and council were pointing out his conflict of interest and need to recuse himself from voting on the matter.
This is not "accountability," leadership, "modernization" or even strength. It is strongarming. It is clearly warning, for those who didn't catch on during the debates or since, of the Caligula-like behavior, that would only be more damaging to the community if the SMI is in place.
Sacramento does not need or want an Emperor or a StrongArm Mayor. The City Charter and Council/Manager structure were CHANGED to the form they now have, to prevent this sort of monster power grab.
It didn't matter if the contribution was a loan or a gift. The FPPC letter, on page 9, says so.
Had the City Attorney bothered to have spent 10 seconds with the Mayor expressing her concern, she would have known that. She didn't. So while the City Manager, City Clerk and other Charter officers enjoy a solid relationship with the Mayor, the City Attorney failed to do the basic job of expressing her concerns to her client.
If this system is so bad, why do most American and California cities of our size have it? Why have Fresno, Oakland, and San Diego all adopted strong mayor/council systems? Its because it gives voters accountability and the city's leaders the ability to get things done.
How about a compromise? Steve, you quit saying "50.000" and we won't quibble about "over 32,000"? It's a win/win!!
The Council Meeting that provided ample time beyond "10 seconds" to reveal/rectifiy conflict of interest information is not enough? Just what DOES Mayor Johnson consider "accountable"?
"So while the City Manager, City Clerk and other Charter officers enjoy a solid relationship with the Mayor, the City Attorney failed to do the basic job of expressing her concerns to her client."
So Kevin Johnson fancies himself "her client" and not accountable as a public servant to his office, City staff, the public and the public's elected representatives in their weekly meetings?
"If this system is so bad, why do most American and California cities of our size have it?"
So you're going to continue to use false numbers on the petition signatures and compare apples and oranges regarding the different forms of Strong Mayor structures throughout California?
How stupid do you think the public is, Steve? Would actual, correct information harm the campaign for the Strong Mayor Initiative?
I like how you deflected William Burg's question about criticism of the current City Manager, Ray Kerridge onto someone else, but I know you were not addressing me.
fifthgeneration- thank you for clearing that up. I figured it was simply too soon. It makes sense. It appears attempts will be made to throw SAVE under the bus. Anyone coming to SAVE the day (stop the power grab) is at risk of being accused of being unethical, unqualified... this is shameful. It will be interesting to see just how low- how much lower- some are willing to go,
Politically compromised
Unrepresentative of Sacramento
Deliberately under funded
Suspect about whom they are really accountable to
Lacking expertise
Obviously the SAG group's 'expertise' wasn't all that great, since the City Attorney's analysis, along with some fairly expert corroboration, revealed significant constitutional and legal flaws.
And when it comes to being 'unrepresentative', how can a proposal drafted in the dark of a backroom, cloaking the vested interests of a very few well heeled elites, touting 50k signatures of people whom no doubt knew little or nothing of what they were signing, given the practices of the measure's signature gatherers, which in itself may become yet another cause of action against SMI should this measure prevail in June, it is highly suspect that SMI is 'representative' of anything but the narrow and insidious interests of elites cynically bent on fooling signers largely ignorant of the issues at hand -- the signers certainly got no explanation from signature gatherers, apparently.
The Charter Review Committee's efforts, albeit with less than desired public input -- reviewing a city's constitution can hardly compete with 'American Idol' or a playoffs game -- nonetheless garnered an outpouring of evolved and enlightened guidance. The wisdom embedded therein suggests that, as with all good strategic oversight, sometimes doing less quantitatively results in more qualitatively in the long run. Doing less, in this case, is keeping in place a governance model that has worked amazingly well throughout its lifetime -- and it has worked well because it disburses authority rather than concentrates it. There is great constitutional wisdom in this, especially if one considers the writings of Jefferson, Paine, and Madison.
But those seeking to grab authority, especially when their collective pasts would suggest anything but that is merited, seem bent on a sort of 'greed is good' ethic reminiscent of the darkest episodes of the Reagan and Bush era... SMI is dangerous, it is a blot on this city's almost perfect record against corruption, and it exposes us all to a politics of backroom deals, nepharious communications, Orwellian linguistic duplicity, and some of the nastiest people and behaviour I've ever witnessed in this town. It should be defeated, and its authors and their backers should be ashamed of themselves....
Compare that to the 10 folks who have attended the Charter Commission meetings.
Then tell me which process has more public input
The 35,000 people who signed the petitions (not counting the approximately 15,000 bogus signatures) did not provide ANY input into the drafting of Hiltachk's initiative. They were merely told to approve a measure that was already complete.
The Charter Commission visited neighborhood groups, did outreach, and solicited public input for six months, receiving information via email, letters and people coming to open, public commission meetings BEFORE they formulated their recommendations. Hiltachk wrote this initiative and presented it in finished form, and you paid signature gatherers to get signatures for an initiative that didn't change a word in the process--except where your signature gatherers lied through their teeth about the initiative to get people to sign their petitions.
The issue is not that the initiative was drafted by an attorney--but that it was crafted from whole cloth by THIS PARTICULAR attorney, a very conservative one with strong neocon ties and a track record of support for the right wing. He did the work without public input, an effort that has resulted in a legally flawed initiative that will cost this city an enormous amount in legal challenges and credibility. Sacramento is on the edge of taking its long-deserved place as one of this nation's great cities, and this effort to slide it back a century to the era of political bosses and cronyism threatens to turn us into a national joke.
It couldn't have taken you that long to come up with your argument considering the Strong Mayor Proposal is:
Politically compromised
Unrepresentative of Sacramento (developers, lawyers who drafted it)
Deliberately and strategically funded by special interest
Suspect about whom they are really accountable to
Back-room under-handed expertise knowing what to put in and leave out to deceive
Lacking community involvement...
Dang, SAVE is a newly formed organization. Gheez. I wouldn't expect them to come out the gate with the FPPC# in hand. They are knowledgeable . I'm sure their own actions will be their security not others judgments. They weren't formed to deceive. They aren't deliberately misleading as the SMP folks. Heck the SMP (Team Johnson) deceptive, misleading folks strategized since BEFORE he became Mayor. His eye has been on the prize , Srong Mayor Proposal, prior to getting in office, while in office... He and his team has overlooked, dismissed, insignificantly addressed other issues just to get to the SMP. Gheez
It doesn't really matter if the Support Accountability Voice and Ethics in Sacramento is new or not or whether person A thinks they probably not trying to be deceptive. Campaign finance laws are there so everyone regardless of how they come down on a particular issue can see who each side's funders are. Then they can make a more informed decision about whether they are comfortable supporting the issue or candidater based on who the big donors are to each side. The racist scumbags at the Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 447 spent a great deal of money during the Mayor's race trying to take Johnson out. I'd like to know if they're putting money into the Support Accountability Voice and Ethics in Sacramento. Why are there such a disproportionate number of land use attorneys on the Charter Reform Commission and is that why their proposal does little to change the way things are done in our city? The past decade brought us the greatest environmental disaster in our city's history with the development of North Natomas (better known as Fargo's Folly). Are the same people who desecrated our lands for an easy buck fighting to keep the status quo? I'd like to know.
So here’s a yard stick to compare by regarding timely filings and disclosure based on City Clerk Records
Sacramentans for Accountable Government (SAG)
12/19/2008-Initial filing of form FPPC 410-(Statement of Organization) Qualified as a committee on 12/12/2008-No FPPC #
01/15/2009-Ammended form 410-FPPC # included
02/02/2009-Filing of form 460 (Recipient Committee Campaign Statement)
for the period 1/1/2008 through 12/31/2008-This is their first disclosure of their contributors and expenses
SAG took in 131.5K for that period
12/22/08-50K
12/24/08-76.5K
12/30/08-5K
Support Accountability Voice & Ethics in Sacramento (SAVE Sacramento)
9/15/2009- Initial filing of form FPPC 410-(Statement of Organization) Qualified as a committee on 9/15/2009- No FPPC #
Friday was Sept. 18th.
Checked the SOS website today (09/22/2009) FPPC ID #1321298.
Tom, do you know the maximum outstanding balance of all personal loans an individual can have to his/her own campaign for state office?
Gov Code 83507(b)
$100K
Sacramento City Code does not apply any maximum to a person contributing to their own campaign. It allows a candidates personal loans to their campaign to be considered as a contribution-by definition.
So Tom, do you think personal loan maximums, by a candidate to their own campaign, is a good idea or a loop hole to be fixed?
I've never really given much thought to candidates who loan money to themselves other than wishing I had that kinda dough at my disposal. (And I wouldn't be using it to run for office either) When Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign a big chunk of change, I thought she was wasting her money. But she wasn't breaking the law, and you knew where the money came from.
I'd really rather see the elimination of donations to PACs and organizational groups. It would make tracking donor dollars much easier.
Locally, i would have liked to have seen the Sacramento County Democratic Party denounce the ugly racism that the injected into the Mayor's race last year. One of the main things that brought me to the Democratic Party as a child was the Democratic Party's history of championing civil rights. The Plumbers used ugly imagery that would have mad Rep. Joe Wilson proud. It was disgusting. But far from being ostracized, the Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 447 was the Platinum sponsor of this year's Stonewall Democratic Club's Four Freedoms Dinner. I hope local Dems reevaluate if this is the direction they want to take the party.
But, as someone once said "Never open a door to an evil, no matter how small, for other and greater evils will creep in after it and form their ambush." We've had the door to the SMP opened (and we're told it's a small change in the order of things but will have major impacts-- yeah right) but my guess is greater evils will creep in from it and ambush us with a corrupt form of government.
Again, great comment
" But I guess it's par for the course for you not to let facts get in the way of your posts" I won't go toe to toe with you. You're not a worthy adversary. Does the city clerk, city manager and council really enjoy a solid relationship with the mayor? Could it be job security? Doesn't the charter changes give the Mayor the power to appoint the city manager and other charter officers? Having sat down in a coffee shop and spoken to Kerridge, without a spokesperson, advisor, assistant BEFORE Johnson became or decided to run for Mayor, and having deep respect for Kerridge my guess is he has a solid relationship with many. Heck, my relationship with Kerridge is solid, so what's your point? I don't speak for the city manager or councilmembers. You can't speak for them- you speak for Johnson. Heck, I can't and don't trust your definition of a "solid" relationship.
Why have Fresno, Oakland, and San Diego all adopted strong mayor/council systems?" Perhaps Fresno, Oakland, and San Diego residents TRUST their Mayor.... For goodness sake look at all the negative crap occuring in Oakland and Fresno- especially in area's of the city's public safety concerns. BIG MISTAKE. (you just opened a door that I will enter at another time) Heck, If Fresno, Oakland and San Diego mayors all jumped off a bridge will ours jump off one too? I can list possible reasons why and give negative outcomes since their SMP. But it's not necessary for me to elaborate. I learned the info from those (gardeners) far more knowlegeable than I on this and other sites. To be honest you ARE a distraction in the city of trees.
You don't work for the city attorney, you don't work for the commission, you don't work for the residents of the city of sacramento... You WORK - and so obviously by hook or crook - for Mayor Johnson- you'll always find someone, other than Mayor Johnson, to blame, to criticize, to put the focus on. You, can play with Kevin Johnson til the cows come home but you won't play with Rhonda Erwin. I'll do what Johnson should have done long ago and that is DISMISS you and your comments. You've made several post on this story and another but have yet to respond to "WHAT specifically, example please, can the Mayor do for the public with the Strong Mayor Proposal, other than the pothole info given on your SAG literature, that he can NOT do with the current system? You can sing around it with deceit, dance around it with trickery, hide it with attacks and misinformation but if you still can't and don't answer the question - you ARE dismissed. Have a good day.
The center, point guard (Johnson) sends out his advisors, assistants, spokesperson motioning for them to go here and there as he dribbles the ball of deceit down the court, passing the ball to other Team Johnson players and they attempt to fake out the other team (Team residents), Then Team Johnson attempts to throw the ball (SMP) over the heads of Team Residents. What's wrong with this play book? The referees (SAVE, community members posting on this site...) are calling FOUL ball. Technical FOUL. Shaq (Maviglio) has to know by now he can't shoot from the FREE THROW line but he keeps trying and this is sad AND I think I finally found my story- thank you.
Regarding your , "The racist scumbags at the Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 447 spent a great deal of money during the Mayor's race trying to take Johnson out." Yes, Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 447 spent a great deal of money in support of Mayor Fargo...." Okay, you're talking apples (mayor's race) and we're talking oranges (SMP) so I don't see the relevance, in fact one thing has nothing to do with the other. Personally I could care less what the plumber union does with their money. Are we to believe all money is good money that's behind the SMP? I'm not concerned with a Plumber union. I don't have a problem with my plumbing. My problem is with the crap flushed in our faces of a SMP. The mayor of Sacramento is suppose to be our mayor, the charter of Sacramento is suppose to be a charter of the people, for the people and by the people- not make the city of Sacramento a Kingdom and the Mayor a King. The plumbers union can flush their money down any drain they choose for all I care, it's their money. And I don't believe all people in a union, community, ethnic, social... background can all be generalized/ sumed up as racist by the action of someone, a few or some within the group. Surely their are folks who pays dues to the union and some folks in the union who are not racist. I didn't bite into that garbage before and won't now. I don't fight playing the race card that is not a tool for me. When truth is your toolbelt all the tools you'll need will be provided for you and you don't have to go looking for a distraction of race.
You ask, "Why are there such a disproportionate number of land use attorneys on the Charter Reform Commission and is that why their proposal does little to change the way things are done in our city?". My response: Ask your mayor I believe (could be wrong) that he voted for/ approved the charter reform commission being formed and agreed to it's members.... You ask: "Are the same people who desecrated our lands for an easy buck fighting to keep the status quo? No and why do you say "I'd like to know" when YOU already know. I can tell by previous post you've written you already knew the answer to the question.
Tonight I atended the City Charter Commission hearing at council chambers. During the discussion of the mayor being able to appoint the city manager I could not understand why some (it was definitely not all of the members) would agree with the Mayor given the power to appoint the city manager. It seems silly to me (and I shared my concerns with the members) for a mayor to be able to appoint the city manager. 1) Would that mean every 4 years WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER CITY MANAGER? It seems the city would walk on a treadmill? Due to every 4 yrs (or when another Mayor is voted into office) we'd have another city manager to train to facilitate the "needs" of "this city" I don't care where he/she was previously employed- he or she would have to learn the operations of "this" city. It seems to me it would be selfish for ANY MAYOR to want to have that power. It seems self-absorbed. It's my opinion, to really care about the needs of the city would be to let the management on the city continue whether a particluar mayor is in office or not.
2) Power to Hire and fire... Does this mean the city manager's head will be on the chopping block throughout the 4 yrs or more that the mayor is in office. Does this mean IF the mayor DOES NOT agree with/ condone, care for the city manager that we can have a new city manager up for discussion-- the city stalled as attempts are made or discussions made whether the mayor can/ will replace the city manager? And I won't get into the fact we can't trust., due to the Mayor's previous track record, the mayor to hire ethical folks and due to the mayor's previous track record we can't trust for him to fire unethical folks and trust he won't fire qualified folks that diagree with him.
Finally an argument I've often heard is " the city manager is not accountable to the community." I disagree. From personal experience when I sent out an email blasting a comment made by the city manager. Someone (not myself) sent it to the city manager. I was contacted by his office for a meeting. I met with the city manager and we discussed my concerns ... The meeting was genuine. I was not pacified. ...It is my opinion the city manager is accountable to the public and behaves as such.
I have to be missing something. Can someone please explain. It just seems silly to put the city in a position to be subject to HIRING A CITY MANAGER OVER AND OVER- everytime we have a new mayor. It seems selfish to even request it. I don't like walking on a treadmill.