Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Third-party attorneys write new strong mayor draft
by Kathleen Haley, published on July 1, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
Loading images
Mayor Kevin Johnson’s strong mayor campaign has released a draft of Johnson's proposal and plans to pitch it to the City Council in July.
The release of the new report marks a change in tactics for Johnson’s campaign because third-party attorneys — not the city attorney — wrote the draft.
For weeks, Johnson’s strong mayor campaign has said that City Attorney Eileen Teichert should write the formal language for the proposal. But the City Council prevented Teichert from writing the draft in a 7-2 vote last month.
The first strong mayor initiative was written by Thomas Hiltachk, a third-party attorney. That initiative was struck down by a Sacramento County Superior Court judge in January.
Shawn Callahan, who works on Johnson’s campaign, explained in a June 30 mass e-mail that the draft is part of the campaign’s strategy to persuade council members to vote for a strong mayor form of government. “With clear and detailed proposal language available for public review, council members have one less reason to oppose letting voters weigh in on this issue,” Callahan wrote.
The two attorneys who wrote the draft are Liane Randolph of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP in Sacramento, and J. Clark Kelso, a law professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. As a "federal receiver," Kelso monitors the quality of health care at state jails.
Read the draft of Johnson’s proposal here.
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
More bullying and strong arm tactics to "persuade" and falsely claim "council members have one less reason to oppose letting voters weigh in on this issue."
If and when the City of Sacramento's Charter (Constitution) is changed to alter the structure and form of municipal governing and balance of powers, it will be a public discussion, a public process with public education and public participation. The proposed changest will be a public document resulting from that public process, not a private agenda, produced by private parties, to consolidate private power and privatize our local government.
The pretense that Mr. Johnson's ongoing campaign to be King of Sacramento is about "letting voters weigh in on this issue" is a farce. "Weigh in" on what issue? Being only allowed to vote up or down on Mr. Johnson's delusional private proposals is not weighing in on "the issue" of changing the City Charter in the best way, for the best outcomes, for the whole community, into the future -- via a public process.
Duping the public into feeling they are being empowered by this snake oil sales pitch power grab is one MORE reason Council should not approve this Boss Mayor process and Mr. Johnson should be removed from office for not doing his current job AND earning a lack of confidence vote from those he is currently empowered to serve.
i still don't understand the whole "public process" argument. so the public has input, who decides what public input will be included in the SMI? how does that group of people get to decide what public input is included in the measure? why should the proposer of the charter (constitutional) change have HIS measure and HIS ideas changed by public influence.
not to get all Ayn Rand on you, but i suggest you watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
people's ideas are their's and their's alone. the public should not change the proposal, only vote on it. if you like it, vote for it, if you don't then vote against it. sounds simple to me.
Rich E. -- "just because the private parties who support this measure are not parties that you support, should not be the final say as to whether the public gets to vote on the proposition."
You have that wrong. My objections are regarding the process, not the parties.
If the structure of local government is to change, for the right reasons and for the long term, an informed public will be involved in the process, not merely manipulated into voting Y or N on one man's power grab.
that is your opinion and one person's opinion should not hold up the right of the people to vote on how society wants to be governed. if it is one man's wish to run the city and "power grab" as you always say, and more people vote "yes" than "no" for it, then isn't it their right to have it that way? to not even give them that opportunity is doing exactly what you claim to be fighting against. you are allowing the council of 8 to dictate how your government is run instead of the people dictating how their government is run. by the way, you never addressed my question of "who" and "what parts" of the public input will be included.
is it an ego thing for KJ? it could be. is he the right guy? maybe, maybe not. but it should be up to the people to decide. you claim there are a select few who are trying to push the SMI through. i claim there are a select few who are holding up the SMI from passing. who is right? how can you tell, since there hasn't been a vote of the people. you are arguing against something based on the process by which it hasn't gone through but yet you are using that same process for arguing your way. you don't want one person in charge because you are afraid of a so-called "dictatorship" occuring but you are allowing eight dictators to block the citizens of this city from even just voting.
how is that right?
"by the way, you never addressed my question of "who" and "what parts" of the public input will be included."
Yes. I did. The fact that you don't understand or value an open public process for changing the City Charter and you accept an unaccountable private agenda instead, is an example of why a public process, rather than back room deals, is necessary. It would serve educational purposes and revive the concept of civic awareness and engagement.
This is not about KJ. This is about Sacramento's future. The public is accountable for their votes. Would a vote on this at this point be an informed contest of ideas with history, governance and community in mind, or another popularity contest, based on "slam dunk" assumptions and getting rid of the old no matter what the consequences.
Show us where the proponents are supporting their sloganeering with information.
You want a mayor with no experience and no interest in the process, who won't do the job he has because he wants a different one than he ran for, with more power and accountability to no one, no council to rein him in at the risk of one of his temper tantrum tirades, so unselfconscious of his own delusions of grandeur that the videotape spurred him and his wax wings further toward the summer sun?
You want voters with no apprehension or interest in the process changing the City Charter at a whim, with unforeseen consequences to be lived out by Sacramentans in the future?
Good luck with that.
"You want a mayor with no experience and no interest in the process, who won't do the job he has because he wants a different one than he ran for, with more power and accountability to no one, no council to rein him in at the risk of one of his temper tantrum tirades, so unselfconscious of his own delusions of grandeur that the videotape spurred him and his wax wings further toward the summer sun" - i never said i wanted KJ to have what the SMI is granting the mayoral position. i have only said i believe the people should be able to vote on HOW they are governed. right now that isn't happening.
"You want voters with no apprehension or interest in the process changing the City Charter at a whim, with unforeseen consequences to be lived out by Sacramentans in the future?" - why is it up to you to decide who have apprehension on the subject? even if they had no clue on the subject, put a blind fold on and used a crayon, its their vote and their right. who are you or anyone to take that away from them?
if you "believe the people should be able to vote on HOW they are governed" why don't you believe they should be part of the process of revising the plan and constitution for "HOW they are governed"?
if you "believe the people should be able to vote on HOW they are governed," why do you believe a "select few" -- KJ and cronies -- should dictate what the changes to the City Charter are?
That said, I don't see the harm in putting SMI on the ballot. If those [m]aligned against Johnson are correct when they claim "everyone is against SMI," then if SMI ever made it to the ballot voters would strike it down with a furious vengeance, yes?
So if you side with Johnson detractors, and you agree that "everyone is against SMI," and you also agree that SMI doesn't stand a chance on the ballot, then you should--technically--- have NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER with SMI going to the ballot... right? I mean, if you're certain everyone is against it, why even bother protesting ?
Well I think we know why. Because it's highly probable that "everybody" is NOT against the SMI. Furthermore most people do NOT hate Johnson's guts like propaganda peddlers would have us believe.
So it turns out the propaganda peddlers are working overtime in attempt to get people to believe there is widespread opposition, but in reality they know there is not. Secretly they fear if SMI gets to the ballot, it will probably pass.Their worst nightmare was Johnson sitting in Fargo's council seat. Their second worst nightmare is the seat being converted to a throne.
Oy. Can you IMAGINE the hate mailers that will be flying around if SMI makes it to the ballot. It would/will be UGLY.
But hey, we're all Americans, right? We all adore our liberty and freedoms, yes? ESPECIALLY our freedom to VOTE. So why would any American want to obstruct the political process? When Rich asked this question a ways back , someone actually responded something like, "because voters are uninformed and will make the wrong decision.."
Wow. So now we have citizens who have apparently designated themselves gatekeepers of the democratic process. WOW! What an amazing responsibility that must be. Shoot, in that case--you know, if voters are too dumb to make a decision--why not just have a puppet election where you just tell us how we should vote on everything.... since we weren't blessed with the ability to reason. like you o' mighty gatekeeper of the democratic process.
PLEASE.
In summary, my perception is that there IS a lot of support for Johnson, and hence it would stand to reason his SMI might actually pass if it were to make it to the ballot (which explains why he keeps forging ahead despite council opposition). Do I think SMI would be a good thing for Sac? NO. But, just as I don't think boycotting a state is the right way to protest a law, I don't think boycotting the democratic process is the right way to oppose Johnson's initiative.
Matter of fact, it's incredibly hypocritical of Johnson to get mad at people for suppressing the political process when he himself suppressed it when he voted to boycott the citizens of Arizona who made him rich.
Disclaimer: my opinion on all this continues to evolve so don't think I'm married to my ideas. I'm open to hear any and all civil criticism of my thought process.
mj
Was that civil enough for you? To point out that comment is total nonsense? Including your false portrayal of the above exchange with "Rich" which you indicate you read, but completely ignored the comments that clarified the distinction b/w objections to Johnson and objections to Johnson dictating changes to the City Charter; you ignored the questions that challenged "Rich's" "thought process" and repeated exactly the same "propaganda" which defies logic, common sense and "the democratic process."
So look at the last set of questions "Rich" can't answer and you ignored. It's hard to tell if you both miss the point on purpose or what. At some point, the unshakable, illogical comfortable "propaganda" of proponents appears scripted and unbelievable. Where is there any thought behind it?
"So if you side with Johnson detractors, and you agree that "everyone is against SMI," and you also agree that SMI doesn't stand a chance on the ballot, then you should--technically--- have NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER with SMI going to the ballot... right? I mean, if you're certain everyone is against it, why even bother protesting ?"
That's a load of bat guano. It suggests that you keep parroting the same old lines from the Johnson gang, without actually reading any of the comments here on Sac Press. Or in this thread.
"why are you pretending this is about taking away "the peoples" right to vote?"
"if you "believe the people should be able to vote on HOW they are governed" why don't you believe they should be part of the process of revising the plan and constitution for "HOW they are governed"?"
"if you "believe the people should be able to vote on HOW they are governed," why do you believe a "select few" -- KJ and cronies -- should dictate what the changes to the City Charter are?"
"If and when the City of Sacramento's Charter (Constitution) is changed to alter the structure and form of municipal governing and balance of powers, it will be a public discussion, a public process with public education and public participation. The proposed changest will be a public document resulting from that public process, not a private agenda, produced by private parties, to consolidate private power and privatize our local government."
"This is not about KJ. This is about Sacramento's future. The public is accountable for their votes. Would a vote on this at this point be an informed contest of ideas with history, governance and community in mind, or another popularity contest, based on "slam dunk" assumptions and getting rid of the old no matter what the consequences?"
- because it is their measure and their ideas which belong to them. if the populus agree with their ideas then they could vote "yes" if they don't vote "no". how hard is that?
oh yes, thank god bbbbmer has been removed so all of us "kool aid" drinkers can run amuck. please. how is it logic-free to let the people vote on someone's or somepeople's ideas? but then again you didn't respond to my statement which basically asked you to show where the city councilmember's constituent's phone records were of public outcry or a poll or a vote or some factual piece of data that shows the people of sacramento have been given an opportunity to choose freely how they want to be governed? either by a change in the governmental structure or by the status quo. if the status quo wins, let me make this perfectly clear...I WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT....as long as they have been given the opportunity to choose, which that has not been given.
why is it bad for society to allow an individual or a collection of people to bring forth to the people an idea they might like and have them vote on it? isn't that what this country is suppose to be founded on is the priniciple/idea that individuals should have the right to choose how they live, which includes how they are governed?
this crap is also a good example of what i said on the "Bbbbmer's Dead" thread: online posters who just want to "win" talking points and not engage in any actual dialogue, listening or learning.
medicrity and mob rule. wonderful.
"If and when the City of Sacramento's Charter (Constitution) is changed to alter the structure and form of municipal governing and balance of powers, it will be a public discussion, a public process with public education and public participation. The proposed changest will be a public document resulting from that public process, not a private agenda, produced by private parties, to consolidate private power and privatize our local government."
as you say "how hard is that?" wonder why you don't want people to make informed decisions or experience participatory government, while spouting your slogans about democracy and principles.
You refuse to read or comprehend or grasp the concept that a private backroom process is very different from a participatory public process and no: crafty, cronyistic -- apparently even CRAZY -- subterfuge is not appropriate for changing the City Charter and system of governance, whether people get to vote on it or not.
And you did exactly what you are falsely accusing me of. You didn't answer these questions:
why are you pretending this is about taking away "the peoples" right to vote?
if you "believe the people should be able to vote on HOW they are governed" why don't you believe they should be part of the process of revising the plan and constitution for "HOW they are governed"?
if you "believe the people should be able to vote on HOW they are governed," why do you believe a "select few" -- KJ and cronies -- should dictate what the changes to the City Charter are?
The answer to the first, I now realize is because that's KJ's current propaganda: this is about people being able to vote. Nonsense. This is about an incompetent, unqualified public official who seeks unilateral power and won't take no for an answer from the people's elected representatives. WE HAVE ALREADY VOTED. The Council voted on our behalf. Shoving this version of the SMI through at this time, in this way, after all that has occurred, is beyond unprofessional and obnoxious. It is INSANE. Even Hitler didn't behave like this.
You're right -- you are done.
why are you pretending this is about taking away "the peoples" right to vote? - "pretending" is subjective on your part. it is taking away the peoples right to vote because THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT. doesn't get anymore clear than that. if they aren't ALLOWED to vote because the city council won't ALLOW the initiative, as is, to be put on the ballot, then essentially the council is taking away the citizen's rights to vote.
if you "believe the people should be able to vote on HOW they are governed" why don't you believe they should be part of the process of revising the plan and constitution for "HOW they are governed"? - i never said they shouldn't be part of the process, those are your words not mine. what i am saying is if someone else has an initiative other than the SMI, and they have met the criteria (i.e. signatures) to place it on the ballot, then they too should have their initiative placed on the ballot. but the proposed initiative is by KJ and his people. his people shouldn't matter as to the initiatiive being placed on the ballot as long as they too have met the criteria of an initiative being placed on the ballot (again, i.e. signatures). but the initiative that is proposed isn't the public's proposal, it is KJ's. therefore, he and his people have come up with how it is worded and the public should be able to decide if they agree with the wording or not. that is done by voting. not by changing the wording to suit certain other factions of the public.
WE HAVE ALREADY VOTED. The Council voted on our behalf. - this is actually a fair statement, but i will address it like this. where are their phone records, email records, letters, etc. from their constituents showing how their constituents wanted them to vote on such an important measure as the SMI? where are the numbers showing they have cast their vote the way their constituents wanted them to? how do you know they voted based on the public's popular vote? each one of them is human and has an ego. there are KJ supporters and non-KJ supporters. they too realize that certain powers would be taken away from the council and given to the mayoral position. you don't think their egos could have had something to do with their vote?
You're right -- you are done - don't make this personal, i am trying not to.
so now that i have answered your questions (you may not like the answers, but i answered them directly), here are mine:
who in the public gets to decide what public input changes how the SMI reads?
how did those people get to make the decision?
how much of the public input will be allowed to change the proposal? how is that decided?
why does the public have the right to change an idea crafted from an individual's mind to suit a certain faction of the public's beliefs? basically, as it reads now, this is KJ and his cronies (to use your terminology) measure, and it reads how they want it to read. why does the public get to change how it reads? if the public (whoever that is) has their own ideas, then let them propose it. but like the republicans and the healthcare issue, they have had their chance and nothing has been done. KJ and his cronies have an idea, it is their idea, it should be worded the way they want it to read, and the public should decide whether they want the charter to be revised to read the way KJ and his cronies want it to read.
lastly, to address your first statement:
that's a lie, avoidance tactic, classic internet bs bully trick to avoid acknowledging actual responses to (your) comments and pretend if someone doesn't ANSWER THE WAY YOU COMMAND THEM TO they haven't met your standards. A way to ignore relevant comments --and answers -- and pretend they've said nothing at all. - show me where you directly answered one of my questions (incidentally those are the same questions i am asking you again above) then i will be the first to step up and apologize. i am not asking you to answer them HOW i think or the way i believe. i am simply asking that you directly answer the question. if i ask "who sits on the panel to decide what public input is allowed to change the SMI?" then all i ask you say is "the people who sit on the panel are...." or site a source or a website for something that has hard, concrete facts that answers the question that is asked. i don't want opinion, i don't want subjective blabber like "KJ is unprofessional and obnoxious". i don't have time for that non-sense. naga, i don't know you, but you seem like a bright individual. give me facts, figures, sources, etc. i am a guy, those are the things i like (remember "men are from mars, women are from venus"? i am the typical man. i can recite the starting line-up and batting averages of the sf giants, but i couldn't tell you the first thing about what hobbies they enjoy.
i hope you had a happy and safe 4th and i look forward to continuing our conversation.
"why does the public have the right to change an idea crafted from an individual's mind to suit a certain faction of the public's beliefs?"
Why does one individual have the right to change the City Charter with an idea dictated from his mind to suit his faction's private beliefs?
Answer: He doesn't.
Once again, you have shown why Sacramento and the USA drastically need some civics lessons, which can come in the form of education or a public process and planning that voters are allowed to participate in and learn from, not just give thumbs up or down on one man's overblown, self-entitled "inititative."
One of the objections to KJ's tactics all along has been the insulting dumbing down of process and politics -- your "logic" is just another example. Yet your camp accuses those who DO give the public credit for being able to understand issues and make informed decisions, of acting like people are stupid.
People aren't stupid but this process, this way of handling changing the charter and the arguments used to support the SMI, are.
if the SMI were to fail in a public vote, i would be ok with it. you continue to make KJ the issue when the only real issue is whether the public gets decide for themselves. you blast me for not answering your questions, but you continue to deliberately dodge mine. who decides what public input is included? come on smart ass you seem to have all of the answers, answer that one. how about this one: why does a council/committee get to change wording to suit THEIR needs? why won't you answer those simple questions.
Why does one individual have the right to change the City Charter with an idea dictated from his mind to suit his faction's private beliefs?
Answer: He doesn't. - you are right in part of this. he does if the public votes for it. he isn't showing up saying "here i have this idea and we are changing it right now". he has said all along, he wants a public vote. now has he gone about it the correct way all of the time, probably not. but from day one, he has asked for a vote. either by council or by public.
wake-up naga, THIS IS NOT ABOUT KJ. you claim he is taking away the power of the public when you are doing the same thing by not even giving the public a chance to vote on the proposal. again, how many more ways can i explain that to you.
you made this statement to open up your reply:
"Changing the City Charter, balance of powers, city governance, redistricting/representation and municipal control of every aspect of City business, if it is for the greater good and the long term is not equivalent to a "ballot initiative." Your mistake is thinking and accepting them as the same thing."
where is the "how" it is different? you throw blanket statements out there but don't explain. how it is different? oh by the way, redistricting has been on the public ballot, at least state-wide. i suggest you join the civics class with me.
for the last time, i am not trying to change your stance on KJ. he probably won't be re-elected anyway. it is a shame considering the position he ran for doesn't allow him to actually do anything other than bang a gavel and hold a few press conferences. he isn't the first to run for a public office position only to find out what he ran for is completely different than what he thought he ran for. at days end, this is still a democracy and we have a right to choose how we are governed. yes we have representatives who sit on the council to cast votes for their constituents. if you can show me proof the councilmembers have voted based on their individual constituency, then i will back off. but it is no coincidence a few will lose their seats this fall and the others barely squeeked by. maybe they aren't voting based on their constituency, but we will never know because there isn't proof. at the end of the day, we as the public should be able to choose how our representatives govern us. otherwise, we are living in a quasi-dictatorship you claim to be trying to stop. only we aren't being dictated by one individual, but by one body of individuals. pretty ironic.
Don't be so sure.
2. "you continue to make KJ the issue when the only real issue is whether the public gets decide for themselves."
I have stated several times why this is a false statement. I object to the process, not the person. The person perpetrating this short-sighted process the way he has, IS now part of the problem. Not the main one. If you read my comments and comprehended them, you would not keep repeating this false claim. PLUS THE FACT that "the only real issue" is whether the public gets to participate in the process of drafting changes to the City Charter or not. That is HOW it is a different process, which you asked again, no matter how many times it is stated.
3. "wake-up naga, THIS IS NOT ABOUT KJ. you claim he is taking away the power of the public when you are doing the same thing by not even giving the public a chance to vote on the proposal. again, how many more ways can i explain that to you."
I don't "claim he is taking away the power of the public." It's hard to tell if you and others are misunderstanding on purpose or not, but after the pointlessness of continuing this "conversation" and your "come on smart ass" comment, you might as well be working for the KJ team, as many of their nonsensical arguments as you repeat and as many counterpoints as you ignore or misrepresent.
4. "where is the "how" it is different? you throw blanket statements out there but don't explain. how it is different? oh by the way, redistricting has been on the public ballot, at least state-wide. i suggest you join the civics class with me."
If you understood civics you could answer the first question. The redistricting comment indicates you have no idea how the SMI will affect Sacramentans; no clue how or even whether there is a proposed resolution to the problem of the 9th Council district in the latest SMI.
5. "for the last time, i am not trying to change your stance on KJ."
You are trying to miss the point and make these false claims on purpose. There is no "conversation.'
yes this conversation is done, which is what i tried to do yesterday but you felt compelled to drag it on. i am not convincing you and you are not convincing me. i don't need to take a civics class to understand common sense. you fail to see the connection of taking away the rights of the initiative proposer(s) and the rights of the individual voter(s) as it relates to common sense. unless you have a source, i.e. website, book, pamphlet, dewey decimal system, magazine, person to talk to, someone, ANYONE to back up your claims then produce it/them. i have asked you several direct questions, again, such as "who are the people that will decide what public input will change the proposed SMI" and you have yet to even answer that simple question. it takes one sentence: "the people that will decide what public input goes into the SMI are...."
as i said in my eulogy of bbbbmer, i am not going to make things personal. go ahead and play that game. as for me, i will just say: have a nice day!!!!!
"who are the people that will decide what public input will change the proposed SMI" and you have yet to even answer that simple question. it takes one sentence: "the people that will decide what public input goes into the SMI are...."
That is not a "simple question:" it is another misrepresentation, a set up, based on incomprehension and false assumptions.
And it's stupid.
Or on purpose.