Tag Cloud
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Editorial: Today I support a strong mayor
by Ben Ilfeld, published on March 25, 2011 at 5:43 PM
Storyline: All the rest
During the debate on a “strong mayor” system of government, each side battled over which form of government allowed for the greatest accountability to the public, democratic ideals in decision making and open debate of policy.
After a fateful 5-4 vote not to promote Gus Vina to full-time city manager and his subsequent resignation, I know that the council system we currently have is seriously broken. Why? Not because of the vote itself or Vina’s decision. But because the debate and vote were conducted behind closed doors in a closed session.
I have no idea why the council decided not to promote Vina. Council members refuse to talk with our reporters about the decision. Wait, what? Yes, you and I and everyone else has no idea why we are without a city manager. We, the public, were not party to the decision, and we cannot easily hold the council accountable, because we do not know the reasoning.
The decision over who manages our entire city government may be the most fateful decision in a decade since that person is tough to both hire and fire under the current system. Yet the people were not a party to it. We were not allowed to speak one way or another in a pubic forum. Whatever the reason, we were not told what the council or individual council members were thinking. Here at The Sacramento Press, our reporters have no access to the real story. So the public will continue to go uninformed.
There are many theories about the value of representative democracy. My favorite is that it allows the people to be deeply involved in consensus-building, and that leads to policies more aligned with public opinion. Another is simply that the public has the ability to “throw the bum out” when we get fed up with a leader. As long as our council hides behind closed-door sessions and refuses to talk with the press about the most material of all decisions, we have neither form. We cannot easily throw them out, nor are we deeply involved in policy making.
Which brings me to the “strong mayor” structure of city government. It may be susceptible to corruption and place too much power in the hands of one official, but at least we could throw the bum out.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3930569279_f12a5922ac_o.png
If you think we should be able to "throw the bum out," isn't that exactly what the City Council has decided to do--rather than having to wait until the end of an elected official's term?
5-4 votes, petty squabbling, smokescreen resolutions and ultimately inaction are all symptomatic indicators of a dysfunctional system.
I know its far-fetched, but lets imagine for a moment that a large business is considering relocating to Sacramento and has sent a scout team to understand the political climate. They would see no permanent city manager for over year with a grim outlook for a high caliber candidate. And they would see a figurehead mayor who is just another vote on a broken city council. Who would attempt to conduct business in such an environment?
City government needs an empowered representative to do the peoples business, while also being directly accountable to the voters. At one time this was a philosophical discussion about how best to organize our city government, but now the dysfunction is slapping us in the face.
It would be like keeping the kings when they would threaten again to leave. Vina's heart doesn’t appear to be in it since it appears he has no problem with leaving the city without a city manager for a year therefore I'm glad the city decided to look for additional candidates. It shows me they were thinking right. In my opinion Vina bailing out when the chips are down is little different than the Kings bailing out.... If you love the city you will labor to make it stronger and make lemonade out of lemons; if you don't more power to you and wherever you go and whatever you decide to do. It is what it is- their prerogative. I don’t know why Vina resigned but his actions appear weak when we need a strong city manager. And a weak city manager with a strong mayor form of government is a disaster waiting to happen.
In regards to the strong mayor government; it’s my opinion the grass always appear to look greener on the other side. But my bet is if we had that strong mayor accountable style government we'd still have weeds/ complaints...... In fact, probably more as absolute power corrupts absolutely and in this city money talks and if I recall our mayor has bought his way out of other legal / criminal situations and not held accountable. So to keep it real until the city stops chasing money or celebrities or chasing those with money accountability is just a word to be tossed around in the game of politics and endorsement.
Vina's resignation is a sign of stength on his part, not a sign of weakness. The council looks and acts like a bunch of buffoons. I wouldn't want my livilihood hanging on their whims either. Especially with their recent track record.
Heck, It was personal when Johnson publicly went after each council member one by one stating his feelings towards each of them, when they voted against his strong mayor. But I don't think we really need to know why they voted as they did, especially now that he resigned. Heck, it's not to say that he wasn't deserving but perhaps their will be someone more deserving- who knows. And with his resignation I wouldn’t care why they voted against him. It could allow him to save face, retire in dignity without flaws, accusations…being printed. They didn't vote for him not to compete with others who may be equally or more qualified. I’m glad they didn’t settle - perhaps he would have been the best man for the job but we’d never know if we weren’t looking… And only the strong survive…..
What if the congress sacked our president behind a closed door. Sound like a good decision to you? Not to me - not in the best interest of the public.
This is precisely the spirit of the Brown Act being trampled upon. And I am sick of it. I'm sick of the secrecy of our city government and elected officials. It creates a system where nobody is accountable for decisions of huge importance to the public who elected them.
No, it doesn't sound like a good decision for congress to sack our president behind a closed door. Heck, it wasn't a good decision for our mayor to sack special assistants behind a closed door and draft the Strong Mayor Proposal without the council or the public....
I do admire your passion towards the Brown Act being trampled upon. And I too am sick of the secrecy of our city/ elected officials but our mayor is not exempt from the secrecy yet our mayor appears always exempt from accountability. And a person can be held accountable without a strong mayor form of government. After all isn't your article an action which can hold some accountable?
Just because we don't like the messenger, lets not ignore the message.
Also, It's not that I don't like Johnson. He appears to be a nice guy to some. I don't trust him and after a recent visit to St Hope with a friend of mines whose son was left hopeless- not to mention the youth NOT IN CLASS but wearing work project vests for detention washing windows instead of in class learning..... I have more reason not to trust him.....or any message he would bring... But putting Johnson aside, I just don't think the decision merits making this the root of Sacramento's civic dysfunction since their was never a decision the position would be Vina's and then suddenly in a closed door fashion taken away..... I thought it was always a possibility he would compete for the position. And it seems just because we don't like some of the council we shouldn't ignore their decision for wanting to search for additional candidates either. The decision may have just been to look around and not due to any hidden agendas.....
I am generally agree with the strong mayor message if Kevin Johnson would have approached it with one key change.... make his 2012 re-election a referundum on strong mayor.
I am for a strong-mayor. Maybe not necessarily as it has been proposed by KJ, however I didn’t think his proposals were all that bad. And had I been a council member I would have voted for the last one. The current city charter provides too many powers to an un-elected position (City Manager). The City Manager proposes the budget, “administers and exercises supervision and control over all offices, departments and services of the city government…” among others. If the mayoral position is going to be taken seriously in this city (the capital of the State of California, arguably the most important state in the union) then some of the functions allotted to the City Manager should be transferred to the Mayor, such as those described above.
As it stands now, the City Charter gives the mayor a glorified press secretary’s position. Some of the functions described in the charter are:
1. Shall be recognized as the official head of the city for the performance of all duties lawfully delegated to the mayor by this Charter, by action of the council or by other laws.
2. Shall provide leadership within the community in the sense that the mayor shall have the primary, but not exclusive, responsibility of interpreting the policies, programs and needs of city government to the people, and as the occasion requires, may inform the people of any change in policy or program.
3. Shall have the right but not the exclusive power to make recommendations to the city council on matters of policy and program that require council decisions.
4. Shall be included within the terms “council” and “city council” used in this Charter unless otherwise expressly provided.
These are laughable. They are fluff and meaningless. The first “function” of the mayor is the “official head of the city”. How can the position be the head of the city when it doesn’t have the power to control certain functions of the city? More of the position’s functions can be found here: http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=city_of_sacramento_charter-iv-40&frames=on
Compare the functions of the mayor to the functions of the city manager here: http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=city_of_sacramento_charter-v-61&frames=on
And one can’t help wonder, why do we have a mayoral position at all?
Also, another thing I hate about giving so many powers to an unelected position like the City Manager is it takes six votes on the council to remove the individual from office. It’s not up to the public and there aren’t provisions for a public recall. It’s not even a majority vote; it is one more than a majority vote. For obvious reasons, I don’t mind the 6 out of 10 votes, but I do mind the public is not even considered. At least the mayoral position is elected and can be publicly recalled as stated under Article XI, section 163 Recall where it states “The holder of any elective office may be recalled, in the manner provided by state law applicable to cities, by the electors after such person has held office six months”.
In closing, give the mayoral position its rightful powers considering it is the “figurehead” of the City. Otherwise, get rid of the mayoral position all together and make the City Manager a publicly elected position.
KJ is by no means a great mayor, but he isn't horrible either. he inherited a tough situation and with the way the charter reads, there really isn't much he can do about it. and it looks like there isn't much this council is going to do about it. we had some turnover in the last election, but it looks like different people, same problems.
i think the way this city is going to get out of the situation we are in is if more people act the way you act. an active person in society who attends council meetings, who is active in the community and who is active on sites like this. if people lead by your example, then that is how this city is going to change. i am not blowing smoke because honestly, i don't think we agree on too much and i think we are part of a different political spectrum. but i love your passion and enthusiasm and i love the "spirited" debates we have on occasion. i think if push came to shove, we could find a common ground. if only our government could learn from it's citizens :)
1) A true leader is purpose-driven. He/ she is motivated and driven by a goal (such as narrow the budget deficit with still providing city residents quality services, programs-- I don’t mean a self serving goal of strong mayor powers) The leader will be focused on the task at hand and not be easily distracted by other things. In this way, he is able to carry out the task effectively and efficiently. If the leader is not purpose-driven, he might waste time doing unimportant things thereby decreasing the overall productivity of the team. (like running off to meet and greet other mayors knowing the city is looking for and needs to interview a city manager)
3) A true leader believes in servant-leadership. He puts the welfare of his team members first – they are an end in themselves, not just a means to an organizational purpose or bottom line. The leader devotes his efforts to serving the needs of his team members, bringing out the best in them and facilitating their personal growth.. The team becomes more effective. Also, this will move the leader away from self-serving, domineering leadership. (as with the Strong mayor powers) Rather, the leader will spend more time thinking about how to respect, value and motivate his team members. If he does not respect his team members, he will risk having a disunited team which is unable to work together to complete the task.
It appears even with the Strong Mayor form of government IF WE DON’T have a true leader we wasted our time…. Seems to me we don’t need a strong mayor form of government we need a LEADER as a mayor.
• Managers maintain the status quo, Leaders bring about change
• Managers impose rules, Leaders provide examples
• Managers think about realities, Leaders are obsessed with possibilities
These are just a few of the sayings. We need to differentiate what we mean by leaders. We aren’t talking Cesar Chavez or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who were leaders of movements of people. They weren’t necessarily leading an organization or government; they were leading for a change. So they rallied thousands of people to force change.
In my opinion, if the mayoral position (again let me stress, not KJ, I am looking at the position not the person) is going to affectively lead a city that we all agree is in disarray, then the position needs to carry more weight behind it than it does. No one on the council respects KJ not of the person he is, but because of the powers the position he holds does not have. The mayor does not propose a budget affecting a councilperson’s district or agency they support; the mayor does not have authority over any department so the council doesn’t need to worry about interacting with the mayor for any departmental reasons other than a vote; they see the position as a glorified secretary – someone who periodically gets up in front of a microphone to update the press on what is happening with the city; among other useless, meaningless responsibilities. If the position had additional powers, then the council would be forced to work with the position instead of bypassing the position, which it does a lot. The mayor is one vote out of nine; hardly enough power to worry a council.
Let me clarify one other thing, I do believe in the checks and balance. I am not saying we should turn the mayoral position into a dictatorship. The budget would be proposed by the mayor to be approved by the council. Department heads hiring/firing would need to be brought before the council. I do like the idea of creating the ninth seat on the council that represents an area. There are too many unrepresented areas of Sacramento and with the growing population and the size there are voices that need to be represented on the council.
The bottom line is, I believe we need to separate the mayoral position from the council creating checks and balances. However, if the charter stays the same, I wouldn’t mind seeing the City Manager’s position turn into a publicly elected position. It is scary to see how much power the City Manager really has and doesn’t have to worry about a public vote. This is the truest definition of power without consequences.
I can't agree with some of what you wrote but I certainly respect and appreciate you for continuing the discussion. Now Rich, their has to be 1 or more on the council who respects Johnson, surely some of the council or heck maybe all respect some of what he has done. Perhaps some don’t respect some of his actions due to some of his games/ trickery and it has nothing to do with him being only one vote. I think the council can and has made some of Johnson’s deceit water under the bridge. I don't think he's blown up the bridge and there is a possibility for a constructive bridge of dialog IF the media stops throwing them against one another….
Rich, you can disagree with someone and still respect them- look at you and I. So, why would it be impossible for the council to still respect some of what Johnson stands for and disagree with some of his behavior or games? Heck, each council member is only one vote yet it's possible and they have been able to get a vote or more from another council member. I don't think Johnson is not getting their vote because they see him as only one vote; I think it's because Johnson’s worse enemy is Johnson and not the council.
If you think the mayor can propose a budget WHY don't we give him the opportunity to do so now since Vina is leaving. Why not let the Mayor prove himself show us he can look at the budget without looking cross-eyed at some of the residents to deliver one hand washes the other promises to unions. I recall during his campaign some kind of controversy with Firefighters unions... I can‘t remember off hand but it seemed shady lol. I say let the mayor propose the budget now - without a SMP- and while we still have some council members who are not bought and paid for by endorsements to provide the check and balances. It's not scary for me to see how much power the city manager really has since the council and mayor vote on his budget proposal or send him back to the bargaining table..... Again, thank you and I appreciate you and our spirited discussions.
as always rhonda, a great conversation. thank you.
I agree with everything you wrote and as always Rich thank you for the thought-provoking conversation.
While some might say that the voter already has such an option by voting out an incumbent come election, that does not prevent the powers of money (much of which comes from outside the city limits as it did/does now) to fund massive amounts in campaign contributions for ads to substitute another of their favorites whose actions might be equally bad for the city.
I also believe a new system can be corrupt and harmful.
In a perfect world I would not really support a strong mayor system at all, but as long as the council can hide from the public about the head of the city government we aren't being given the kind of democracy where the public is part of the process.
This council has been on a rampage of inaction and pettiness for quite awhile now....
2. The power of the city manager would likely be lower as the mayor would be an elected official who would be in charge of the executive part of city government.
if we cannot discuss the job performance of the single most important city official then we need to have a new system. There is no question that on the federal level we have mandatory open meetings for high public officials. Why would we submit to anything less on the city level?
I don't write often because I am not and have never been a journalist. I'm not really a marketing professional either. I am an entrepreneur and I do have a passion for Sacramento. it's my hometown, my place of birth and the place where I intend to live with my family. So I speak as a citizen and as a leader within this organization, but no more.