just because he was elected to serve on the council does not mean he doesn't have the right to try and change the position. the current charter is almost 100 years old. for crying out loud, even the U.S. constitution has changed in the last 100 years. why is the sacramento city charter more important than the U.S. constitution?

i also like how people think KJ focuses solely on the SMI, as if he can't work on multiple things.

Rich: The city charter has been amended quite a few times since the 1920 charter was put into place. The difference here is that this is a significant structural change, and by the laws of our state, changes of this magnitude are to be drafted by a charter commission before being voted on by the people, not by private attorneys. It's not just an amendment but a full revision--on the order of not just amending the US Constitution, but creating a new framing document with a fundamentally different division of power among the branches of government.

He was also elected to make much needed changes to bring Sacramento into the 21st century. To remain a “weak mayor” along with his cohorts of weak councilmembers does nothing to bring us into the 21st century. And the past has certainly not produced an image or outcome that has benefited most corners of Sacramento. Someone must take the lead and be accountable. However, when there are nine “leaders” (councilmembers) it’s rather difficult for someone to take the ACTUAL lead and produce real results.

Rich E, why do you ignore the answers to simplistic, faux naive questions and repeat them over and over again?

So, Mr. Burg, "a significant structural change," "changes of this magnitude," have been attempted by Mr. Johnson, in violation of "the laws of our state."

naga, because people like you only see things through your blind eyes. i have asked you simple questions as to "who would determine..." and you fail to even answer those questions. until you or anyone else actually answers those questions, i will continue to ask them. and what are you doing posting here? shouldn't you and bbbbmer be planning you next tree hugging event?

william burg, full revision? um, the last time i read it, it did two things: 1) gave two definitive job definitions to the mayoral position (other than the ambiguous definitions currently written in the charter), the first is propose the city budget, with council approval (hmmm, no dictatorial powers there) and give the mayoral position the authority to hire and fire department heads, thus giving the mayoral position the responsibility of those departments and their performance (hmmm, no dictatorial powers there either). 2) creates a ninth district on the city council.

where in the SMI is there definitive dictatorial powers given to the mayor? naga, can you answer that or are you going to ignore that question too?

The one thing i don't understand is that concept of old vs. new. An executive form of government is not "newer" or more "modern" than a council or legislative body.

I feel like we should all argue the change on the merits of the change. Why do we think the change will get better outcomes? Do we feel policy will better reflect the will of the people? Is there any evidence for that? Do we feel there will be less corruption? Is there any evidence of that? Do we feel there will be a more responsive government? Is there any evidence for that?

We are lucky in that we are not the only city out there. We can analyze the outcomes of other cities and determine what is best for ours - but one is not more modern than the other. This is not a technological innovation here - it is a choice of the institutions of our city government between two well established forms.

ben, i agree with the concept of arguing the merits of the change. the problem that is continuously run into is, it doesn't matter the form of government, as long as human beings are in existence - and are sitting in those seats - there will be some form of corruption, argument, special interest, etc. take for example the federal government. american's consider our form of democracy the best in the world. we are suppose to have separation of powers. however, with those separation of powers, there is corruption and special interest involvment in each of those powers. the presidency is bought based on polictical parties and the money thrown behind the two major candidates; senators and representatives are bought not only from national special interests, but local as well; even the judicial system is essentially bought based on what political party is sitting in office at the time of appointment.

maybe i have not made my point clear enough for some, so let me try again. i am all for our local representative government and having a city council. i don't want to see the entire city council dissolved. but i am in favor of removing the mayoral position, which under the current charter is the representative of the city but carries no specific powers or duties (other than lead the city council meeting). i want to separate certain powers away from the council, considering the snails-pace it moves to get things done in our city; and i want to remove some powers from the city manager (which is an appointed position, not a publicly elected position, oh by the way, the city manager has more authority and power than the city mayor eventhough according to the charter the city mayor is suppose to be our representative) and give the mayor (not specifically KJ, i wish people would separate KJ from the SMI considering KJ won't always be mayor) more authority to do things without everything going in front of the council only to have more subcommittees and independent auditors and blah blah blah.

everyone talks about KJ and his lack of leadership. how do you expect anyone to lead if no authority is given to them? you can have the greatest mayor in the world, but if the city council knows there is nothing he/she can do, what good is the person city in that seat? its like a "lame-duck coach" in professional sports. if the players know management isn't behind the coach and that coach is in the last year of his contract, you will see those players tune out their coach early and often. if the city council knew the mayor has some authority and power, and the public was behind that mayor, you bet they would be a little more inclined to get things done. otherwise, they better start looking for another office to run for.

No Rich E, what I am "ignoring" is you and your antagonism, belligerence and willfully ignorant comments.

Come Ben, it's marketing!! "NEW and IMPROVED!!" It's NEW it must be BETTER!! Nevermind that the "old" in this case is a "reform for the people" in response to previous Boss Mayor corruption.

That's one of the big obstacles to the process here -- the insistence of Team KJ to present their SMI as all sizzle and no substance. All buzzwords and no information, bypassing community discussion of the type of important and basic questions you raised. Where that DID occur was at the Charter Commission committee public forums, with handouts and diagrams that helped portray the different possible proposals and compare KJ's SMI's (im)balance of powers with other city's with strong mayors. (Guess which one gave unprecedented and unchecked powers to the mayor). The Rich E comment mentions the 9th District but ignores the legal and political ramifications that were never resolved in the SMI proposal. (Including the mayor having two votes plus VETO power). Crazy.

SacPress might be an appropriate place to have informed discussions about policy matter like this.

bbbbmer....er, i mean naga, keep ignoring the other side and other opinions. that's the way to keep an open mind. good job.

actually, bbbbmer was responsible for getting rid of bbbbmer, not me. in the real world we are all responsible for our own choices. but then again the new "american way" is to blame everyone else for one's own shortcomings instead of looking in the mirror and deciding to make a change.

there were many times i tried to have a civil discussion with bbbbmer, much like i have tried with you "naga", but when direct questions are asked and your response turns into "doo doo", well then i just move on, consider the audience i am trying to have a discussion with, and understand some people just can't understand their are opposing points of view. the fact STILL remaims, you have never answered "who" sits on any committee that would review a proposed SMI. and you STILL have not answered "who" decides what public input is allowed to change an individuals proposal and what public input is put aside and not used.

so the next time you want to bring your insults towards me, i suggest you bring more than "doo doo" smack. as far as using my real name "naga", isn't it nice that you know i am a real person instead of some fictional name made up out of god knows where meaning god knows what. but then again, it wasn't until towards the end of "the wizard of oz" did we actually see the man behind the curtain. some of us aren't afraid to step out from behind that curtain...others prefer to be called "naga".

any other name calling or to you want to get to the actual point of the article?

actually you were one of the main antagonists of bbbbmer and admitted as much in the article/comments about his departure. he had more time and interest for your faux naivete and bait and switch tactics -- you two really got into it.

here again you try to make false claims about the record and make absurd demands about how and what i should write in reply to your expectations. already told you that ain't gonna happin. esp. when you seem to more interested in playing games than in being informed. you ignore the substance of the answers that you do receive and then continue to badger. BORING.

So no, no name calling and no point in reading/responding to you.

yes naga i did apologize and i probably did antagonize, but who is in control of bbbbmer responding, me or bbbbmer? i think you will find the real culprit to bbbbmer's ban is the answer to that question.

and no i don't want you to write to my expectations, i want you to answer the freaking questions. but when you don't have an answer to either of them, it is hard to answer them. i tell you what, answer them to your expectations, how about that? just for ha-ha(s), here they are again, answer them as YOU wish:

who sits on the commitee that decides what public input changes the SMI proposer(s) proposition?

and

who decides what public input gets to change the proposed initiative and what doesn't?

good luck with your answers....oh and any time you want to come out from behind that curtain and shed that easy-living of anynomity, come on out. i will welcome you with open arms. but then again, i am not sure you have the guts to.

you're right. bbbbmer was responsible for bbbbmer's comments. he chose to tangle with timewasters like you and poke holes in your willful ignorance. he said what he thought about those who were mere provocateurs and players.

as for your bully taunt, i have the guts to not care what you think about who i am.

as for your "questions" those are your constructions, perpetrated on me in past comments where you completely and apparently intentionally missed every point in every comment and threw up these challenges that are YOUR assumptions and have nothing to do with what i was saying.

So YOU "answer them to your expectations, how about that? just for ha-ha(s)." Or before you ask yourself them, ask yourself why you assume such a set up would be the only possible way to go about whatever it is your talking about. Or is that another game?

I can't keep up with you. Ya got me.

As a reminder, we do not allow personal attacks against one another and encourage everyone to stay on topic. Please refrain from name-calling and refer to our "Rules of Conduct" here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/190/Terms_of_Use_Rules_of_Conduct. Any comments that violate our terms of use will be removed.

Rich E., whatever your problem is, you have just repeated the negative behavior that I have called you on and Casey is warning against, which degrades discussion online and on SacPress.

"naga", whatever...go get a life will ya

LOL didn't think you'd miss bbbbmer this much, did you? :bighug:

Naga, I really support much of what you say, but your profile doesn't have any contact info, but I'd really like to open a thread with you in private -- I can be reached at dshore22@yahoo.com. Thanks.

That still won't be enough. Even if Ashby and Shenirer vote yes, that's only three votes. Robbie Waters will be gone and neither of his potential successors has been warm to the strong mayor idea.

True, but there's always Cohn and Hammond who have supported the mayor 's wants in the past. He may be able to convince them yet again to do his bidding. I get the feeling they're both irritated with the mayor and may not support anything he proposes; however, they both have a history of supporting the mayor's grand schemes for whatever reason. We shall see...

Susie...Hammond's term is closing...hence the Kennedy and Shenirer run-off. That leaves Bonnie. She has been a very thoughtful and pressing voice on CC with regards to all the SMI's to date.

As an example...listen to her comments at the end of Tuesday night's CC meeting with regards to one of her constituents request for assistance with regards to obtaining a permit for a paint & chrome shop.

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=2350

jump to "Panel request to Manager" at almost the end of the meeting

Evidently this individual sent am email to all the CC members and the the mayor...an intern on the mayor's staff replied to this individual. The reply did nothing to address the request of the individual but instead refereed them to the strong mayor charter initiative.....evidently inferring that was the cure-all for their situation. ...Red Flag...and possible FPPC violation...city staff using city time to promote a political measure.

I don';t see Bonnie, Kevin, Rob, or Sandy supporting anything that isn't with significant CC input too say the least and given the assessments delivered to date by the charter commish and the community... that any proposal granting an overbearing separate role for the mayor is actually necessary.

It isn't the structure of the system that's broken...5 votes is not a formidable obstacle...but it does require public dialogue and consensus building...and the day to day running of the affairs of the city are best left to a professional manager...not a politician looking for contributions.

Hi Fifth- thanks for the info and the link. I watched and I especially enjoyed how she said she was "pissed off" about what the mayor's intern did. She is a gem.

Alright, so I guess it's just Cohn then. It seems he's not too thrilled with the mayor after his little diatribe against Cohn and the rest of the council so Andy, it looks like you may be right.

Mr. Schenirer is in a runoff and hasn't won his seat yet.

Ashby has already made a deal for KJ's support. In return she owes him big time.

Since initiating his strong mayor proposals, the mayor has repeatedly indicated, For The Last 18 Months, that he can't do the job he was elected to do without those powers.

SacBee 5/18/2010 Foon Rhee Article

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/18/2757577/former-mayors-look-back-and-ahead.html

"He seemed frustrated, saying over and over that he doesn't have the tools he needs to follow through on the change sought by voters who elected him in 2008, and to keep Sacramento from falling behind similar cities around the nation.

He said he raises money privately for his initiatives, but then loses control of them once they are folded into city government. He complained that more people work at airport rental car counters than for him. He even floated the possibility of not seeking re-election in 2012 if he doesn't get more power.

Johnson's grievances are in service of his renewed push for the latest version of the strong-mayor initiative."

If he isn't up to performing the job, ordained by a charter, that numerous mayors/leaders prior to him have done with the staff they had...two choices...

Stop complaining and do your job...or resign.