Tag Cloud
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Mayor Johnson responds to editorial criticism
by David Watts Barton, published on October 22, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Storyline: From the Managing Editor
After reading an editorial in the Sacramento Bee this morning, Mayor Kevin Johnson posted a response on his blog.
We haven't been able yet to get permission to reprint it on our site, but we think Sacramento Press readers will find it interesting.
Here is the link to the blog post.
Please feel free to continue the conversation here on The Sacramento Press.
(Later this evening, our reporter Kathleen Haley received permission from Johnson's office to reprint Johnson's blog post from his private campaign website, which is not subject to the same open access as would be a post on a government blog. Here is his post in his entirety.) It’s all about accountability I love accountability. And I find it curious when elected officials and the media decide the moment has arrived to wrap their arms around the fundamentals of accountability, for the time being. They demand accountability -- for everybody but themselves. They choose which rules they follow -- then attack others without investigation, due process or fact. They ignore my calls for an independent audit -- only to embrace an audit when it suits their ambitions. And now, suddenly, conveniently, they are champions of accountability.Let's talk about accountability. It's a subject I understand. I ran for Mayor on a platform of accountability. I demand accountability for myself, my staff, and every employee in the city of Sacramento. But standing alongside accountability is responsibility. Public officials have no claim to accountability if they make accusations without facts and blunder forward in pursuit of personal gain. That is not the definition of acting responsibly. I've been Mayor of Sacramento for 324 days. Not one day has passed without me talking about accountability. Some facts: In my first action as Mayor, I convinced a nationally respected firm to send experts to Sacramento and perform an external review of city departments. It was all about accountability. The company was willing to waive most if not all of its fees -- an unprecedented offer for the city. How did a majority of the city council respond? With disdain, ridicule and ambivalence. The council voted against the review – not once, but twice. Today, several council members have rotated 180 degrees. They want an audit of the city's Community Development Department. To which I say, "Amen," and "Where were you in January? Where were you in June?" The need for an audit became obvious after the suspension of two city employees after other city officials found problems with building permits in Natomas. An investigation is underway. When the facts are established, I will do what I have always done: demand swift and appropriate action and protect the taxpayer. In other words, accountability. Now I am asking the city council for accountability. At the October 20 city council meeting, in a brief remark, I asked the City Manager to investigate how privileged city documents were being leaked to the media. My request puts several people in uncomfortable positions. The people who leaked the material are uncomfortable. And the media are uncomfortable. But the comfort of those people and organizations is not my concern. My motive is simple: Leaking privileged documents violates the trust placed in us by the citizens of Sacramento. It destroys the integrity and credibility of municipal government, and the government’s ability to function. It’s sneaky and dishonest. It’s all about accountability. Accountability isn’t just for front-line city employees. It runs from top to bottom. I must be accountable. And so must my colleagues. Yet today we have the possibility that a city council member or council senior staff member decided to violate the spirit if not the letter of our laws, and violate the public trust. Maybe they have what they consider a good reason. Maybe they believed the media had a right to the documents, despite the fact that they were written under the attorney-client privilege fundamental to our judicial system. If so, they should have had the courage to accept accountability, stand up at City Hall and say, “I did this.” I would respect that person. But they have no courage. And while I won’t speculate as to their motives, their lack of courage and need for secrecy erases any legitimacy of their act. Accountability is not situational. It can’t be used for political convenience. You are either accountable, or you are not.Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The same text is sitting in my email inbox and, presumably, a great many other email inboxes. You're welcome to reprint my email.
Mayor Johnson also considers "accountability" to mean paying a fine when he gets caught doing something wrong (like with the St. HOPE Americorps grant, the $25,000 loan to the Strong Mayor campaign that became a gift only after a conflict of interest was pointed out.) Accountability means admitting you have done wrong when you make a mistake, not tearing off a check and claiming that no wrong was done. It also implies a willingness to learn from one's mistakes, rather than repeating them and hoping nobody is paying attention.
Accountability might be demonstrated in taking direct responsibility for the audit of Development Services out of City Manager Kerridge's hands, and having the mayor and council oversee the audit directly. But Johnson opposed that move, even though the suspended supervisor, Bill Thomas, is an old friend of Kerridge, dating back to his days in Portland.
What more do you need?
Bee editotial link below.
www.sacfortourists.com
This is a little strange. Since when does a news outlet ask an elected official for permission to print something that was said on a blog and in a public statement? I get a little confused by the Sac Press' rules sometimes.
The irony here is that Thomas and Kerridge puffed themselves up on "TRANSPARENCY". How are "privileged documents" compatible with transparency? Both repeated that word so often that the rhetoric became suspicious. Shortly transparency turned into translucence, then fogged over and finally obfuscation. Now we see why.
The mayor's article sill sounds more like he is more worried about the leak of "privileged documents" than the alleged misdeeds.
Here's the link to Bee editorial, at this late date and in this extreme situation, actually performing its role as a (too little too late) vital community resource.
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/v-print/story/2272370.html
"At Tuesday night's council meeting, a steaming Johnson called for a closed-door council session attended by the city police chief. He wanted the chief there to discuss what he called "the crime" committed when a memo written by City Attorney Eileen Teichert about the Natomas permit violations was leaked to The Bee."
KJ's version: "At the October 20 city council meeting, in a brief remark, I asked the City Manager to investigate how privileged city documents were being leaked to the media."
Okay, it was "a brief remark" and he was "steaming." Buddy, look, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Council chamber. If you can't tell the real crime from your own agenda, all of your enablers haven't done you any favors. They have set you up for this or another case, where you don't comprehend the difference between your own ability to skate by, escaping prosecution --- and violations of policies and procedures you never studied or cared about, that affect the population you have SWORN to represent and serve.
Has Johnson's Golden Boy status, enabled and enshrined by the Bee, even during his own Federal investigations of misuse of funds, led him to not fathom the "real crime" in this situation? And the people of Sacramento end up paying higher insurance premiums as a result?
"It's clear now that improper permits were intentionally issued, prompting a Federal Emergency Management Agency inquiry into those actions. As a result, City Manager Ray Kerridge has placed Dan Waters, the son of councilman Robbie Waters, and Bill Thomas, the head of the Community Development Department, on paid administrative leave. He's also ordered an outside independent review.
"The city manager's response demonstrates the seriousness of what is alleged here. Failure to comply with the federal building ban could expose the city to federal fines and trigger a downgrade in the city's flood protection rating that would boost insurance premiums for property owners through most of Sacramento."
I do agree that the Bee during his campaign could have pointed out his total lack of qualifications and understanding of local politics, procedure, and current business practices of the City.
It's almost comical, in a Keystone Cops kind of way, to watch this mayor flap and flutter around about this issue, not first seeking the accountability of those at the core of this lapse, but rather diverting attention away from the actual issue by blaming the messenger and whistle blower. He constantly compares himself to President Obama, arrogantly calling himself 'Baby Barack' on nationwide television, but his behaviour, in this and so many other instances where his hubris and overreaching have been caught red-handed, is more like Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. Obama, for all his disappointments and fits and starts, is a leader. Johnson, for all his past and present peccadeloes, payoffs, and paybacks, is no more a leader than a three-card monte artist who doesn't play the game very well...
The last time I saw or read rhetorical puffery as tortured as KJ’s little bloggy jibberish was probably a speech by GWBush, or a Sarah Palin press conference, or in a self-congratulatory interview by Rush Limbaugh on his role in ‘spawning’ Glen Beck, or perhaps that ‘manifesto’ of Ted Kazinsky’s… Great minds think alike, and poor ones don’t think at all…
Go ahead, try to comment on anything he posts. Every single comment gets moderated away.
It's very bizarre.
HOWEVER, Johnson's memo says of the leak that "their lack of courage and need for secrecy erases any legitimacy of their act." Does anonymity always illegitimize a claim? It doesn't change the truth of what actually happened which should have a proper investigation so the facts can be set straight. Politicians should come to terms with the fact that constituents are tired of seeing corruption and back-door deals, developers putting people's lives at risk so they can make a few extra bucks. When constituents think of accountability WE think that the government needs to be accountable for making decisions with integrity in the first place - sometimes that starts on a computer in the permit department.
http://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=8