Mayor Kevin Johnson’s strong mayor initiative may be dead, but charter reform is still on life support at City Hall after a 6-3 vote at a City Council meeting Tuesday to put a measure on the ballot that will let voters decide whether a new, elected charter commission should be formed. The measure puts two questions on the November ballot: Do the voters want to form an elected charter commission? And if the answer to the first is yes, then who do the voters want to be on that commission? The ... mcorker Angelique Ashby comment-70004 2012-06-25T05:28:33Z 2012-06-25T05:28:33Z Let me answer a few of your questions. I can only speak for myself. 1 - I never voted to support strong mayor. I did vote to place it on the ballot for voters to decide once and for all, so we could be done with it. It is a distraction for this council. 2 - I am fine with placing the Charter Commission on the ballot as well, for exactly the same reason... Let the people decide. 3 - The only difference to me is total cost and timing. Placing the commission on the ballot is a minimum half million dollar commitment because the ballot measure is the least expensive part. If it passes the City will need to sustain 15 new electeds, staff their efforts and provide support for at least two years. Then place another ballot measure on a future ballot. Two cities have done this in California. Both ended up with strong mayor systems. I personally am not vested in either form of government and am fine with whatever Sacramento wants. By the way, the most recent effort (in the 90's) actually cost the City of LA in excess of a million dollars. We are grossly under estimating the cost of this commission. McCarty's solution to that issue was a cap on the process... But then what if they run out of money half way into the process? I feel if we make a commitment to it we need to be able to see it through. However, we JUST told every employee in the city that we need them to pay their own pensions because we don't have any money. Going into Tuesday night we were very close to a tentative agreement with police that in combination with all the other employee groups would have given us just that - pension reform. But a vote to focus on charter reform with a minimum cost of half a million dollars is disingenuous to the efforts we were currently focused on for pension reform. My motion to wait was intended to avoid sabotaging our own pension reform efforts. I feel like we can do both reforms, if we take them in turn. 4 - A question for all of you.... don't you think the most fair thing to do (and maybe this is just the Mom in me) is finish pension reform and then, if folks really want to weigh in on the charter, place all options on the ballot.... Let Sacramento choose - strong mayor, charter commission, leave it as is and move on? I'd be fine with that too. 5 - The question I asked during council that the City Attorney didn't like was to the person who has to ask fire fighters if they will agree to give up their pension benefits. I asked him if this vote to place a charter commission on the ballot will make that effort to reform pension more difficult. I wanted to be sure we examined the potential outcomes of our actions and I disagree with our attorneys position by the way. 6 - As for any comparisons between money spent on this effort versus money spent on the arena effort. Much of the money used for the "arena" discussions has already paid off in spades. We used environmental impact reports, data and economic projections paid for during the "arena" process in our application to the federal government for our transit station which was selected for a fifteen million dollar grant. The point here is that much of the research was associated with the location (the railyards), not just the project (an arena). So it will be useful moving forward, not all of it, but a great deal of it can be used for cross purposes as we work to develop the largest urban infill project in the country. 7 - My focus is making sure we provide services to residents. Pension reform is a critical component to that effort. We need to cut expenses (reduction of some city services), reform systems of financial structure (pension, retirment tiers) and grow economic engines (repair the levee to lift the moritorium in our new growth community, build out the railyards, fix our infrastructure, support and recruit businesses). This three pronged approach is our way out of the economic downturn, but it is a balance of timing, compromise and hard work. You can't expect our partners (employees or voters) to trust us with their pay or retirement or taxes if we are not cautious, honest and fair in how we proceed. By the way, on the line in this year's budget are 16 police officers (that is in addition to the more than 60 we laid off last year), 60+ fire fighters, our hazmat unit, land and water rescue and any ability we may have had to begin restoration in the next two years. I don't want more brown outs, nor do I want to reduce police, fire or parks services any further. My goal while in office serving this great city is to protect services to our citizens, everything I do is focused on that outcome. I hope this clears up some of the assumptions, questions or misunderstandings throughout this comment chain - at least as those comments relate to my position on this issue, how or why I voted a particular way or what the heck I was thinking when I said or did something from the dias that you didn't understand. Thank you for the opportunity. Angelique Ashby 2012-06-25T05:28:33Z ViolaDeSilva comment-69891 2012-06-22T12:27:52Z 2012-06-22T12:27:52Z I would suggest they want an SMI for more than just an arena -- it is a comprehensive change that would disable any council, and therefore, neighborhood, input into city governance, rather handing authority to the backers of the mayor, and closed doors... ViolaDeSilva 2012-06-22T12:27:52Z ViolaDeSilva comment-69890 2012-06-22T12:25:07Z 2012-06-22T12:25:07Z Off year off season elections are more favorable to KJ's agenda. The general will not be so predisposed, which would be consistent with current polling which holds his approval at somewhere below 30%... ViolaDeSilva 2012-06-22T12:25:07Z evak comment-69875 2012-06-22T04:25:03Z 2012-06-22T04:25:03Z One of the comments they made was that they wanted a "single issue" on the ballot pertaining to the Charter. I can't remember the exact verbiage; the meeting did run quite late and I was yawning quite a bit at this point. But the point (seemed to be) that they wanted only those issues that they were interested in being decided by voters--not what the voters themselves wanted. To be honest, before I listened to the debate I was quite opposed to the Charter Commission but as I listened to it, I changed my mind. If nothing else, the .. dirty pool that opponents of it were willing to engage in, in the public eye was (to me anyway) quite shocking. evak 2012-06-22T04:25:03Z William Burg comment-69864 2012-06-22T00:19:37Z 2012-06-22T00:19:37Z Why did Ashby make that motion? Is there a reason why she did not want this issue before voters during this election cycle? William Burg 2012-06-22T00:19:37Z William Burg comment-69862 2012-06-22T00:07:19Z 2012-06-22T00:07:19Z Evak: In that case, why were Johnson, Schenirer and Ashby in support of a charter change on the November 2012 ballot six months ago, but not now? William Burg 2012-06-22T00:07:19Z evak comment-69855 2012-06-21T22:41:16Z 2012-06-21T22:41:16Z True. But these are "opportunity costs". In other words, while these existing City staff are working on the Charter, they are not doing other things. It's the same problem that we had with the arena actually. It remains my (very strong) belief that if it were not for the strong mayor and arena distractions we could have had a City budget that, while by no means pretty, would have avoided some of the more draconian cuts. For example, we might have had the staff time to go after additional federal, state and even private grants and to properly document the expenditures made under existing grants. That alone might have "saved" us a couple of million dolars. What I find very interesting is: 1) That Ashby, Johnson and Schenirer were perfectly happy to have a vote on this Exact resolution after the November elections; 2) That Ashby, Johnson and Schenirer expressed support for the Charter review in discussion (but then voted against it) 3) That when asked about the greater opportunity costs associated with the arena fiasco Schenirer called them an "investment" 4) That none of the three seemed to think it a big deal that they spent $700K on the failed arena 5) That one of the reasons Ashby, Johnson and Schenirer gave for their votes no is "lack of public interest" when my streamer kept pausing--and this meeting went past 11 PM--so people were watching; just not in Chambers, in jammies. evak 2012-06-21T22:41:16Z evak comment-69854 2012-06-21T22:31:45Z 2012-06-21T22:31:45Z They want Strong mayor because they want the arena. But here's the thing--it wasn't lack of Strong mayor provisions (and all its attendant ongoing costs--which at the meeting were calculated to be more than $600K in the first FY alone) that prevented the arena from happening: it was negotiating in bad faith by all concerned. evak 2012-06-21T22:31:45Z evak comment-69853 2012-06-21T22:28:55Z 2012-06-21T22:28:55Z Ashby made a motion that was identical to mcCarty's--but that would be voted on after the November election. Not only that but the Acting City Attorney reprimanded her for her questions which violated the prohibition against negotiating in public. The sausage she wanted to make was not made of organic products. evak 2012-06-21T22:28:55Z Isaac Gonzalez comment-69852 2012-06-21T21:49:54Z 2012-06-21T21:49:54Z http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3012&meta_id=385866 "Financial Considerations: The estimate of staff time associated with the activities of a charter commission reflects the cost of existing staff and will not require additional City resources." The "costs" of this program are already included in the approved city budget, except for the costs from the county to print the ballots. Those costs, as outlined in the document I provided the link to above, will actually come in much lower than as stated, because the city will already have (by all best guesses) at least two other measures on the ballot, and the county offers a discounted rate for printings in groups. If we were to use the logic that the exsisting staff time should be included in the overall costs of city projects, then the costs associated with the failed arena plan would be much larger than reported. Isaac Gonzalez 2012-06-21T21:49:54Z Lee Middleton comment-69848 2012-06-21T20:25:07Z 2012-06-21T20:25:07Z If McCarty “understands the costs involved” then he should pay the costs. This city is currently in financial trouble yet this council is able to find funds to pay for this proposed elected charter commission. Amazing! It is no wonder that the vast majority of the people of this city hold this city council in such low esteem. Lee Middleton 2012-06-21T20:25:07Z William Burg comment-69841 2012-06-21T19:34:21Z 2012-06-21T19:34:21Z Sausage included some pretty foul ingredients indeed, until the public became involved. Behind closed doors, who knows what disgusting things can get thrown into the mix? With a public process, it's all out in the open--making it easier to spot the disgusting stuff before it gets served to the general public. William Burg 2012-06-21T19:34:21Z William Burg comment-69840 2012-06-21T19:32:41Z 2012-06-21T19:32:41Z I don't understand this flip-flop about charter change. Only a week or two after he took office, Kevin Johnson was calling for a charter change, and since taking office, has floated three proposals to change the city charter. Of those intervening years, all were years of budget crises, including deficits and layoffs. The most recent effort, only six months ago, included some very expensive provisions, including a re-redistricting of the City of Sacramento to create a ninth council district, new commissions and committees, and would have required a special election to elect a ninth council member. Somehow, six months ago putting charter change on the November ballot was highly important to Johnson, Ashby and Schenirer. Now they appear to have flip-flopped on this issue. My question is, why? William Burg 2012-06-21T19:32:41Z William Burg comment-69839 2012-06-21T19:29:20Z 2012-06-21T19:29:20Z Then why did they support putting a charter change on the ballot six months ago? William Burg 2012-06-21T19:29:20Z MidtownSquinter comment-69835 2012-06-21T18:19:13Z 2012-06-21T18:19:13Z What's the deadline timeline for the commission "candidates" to file? Is this version by district? MidtownSquinter 2012-06-21T18:19:13Z deb belt comment-69834 2012-06-21T17:48:44Z 2012-06-21T17:48:44Z Ashby and Schenirer make reasonable argument against this... deb belt 2012-06-21T17:48:44Z MyQuest comment-69828 2012-06-21T16:14:47Z 2012-06-21T16:14:47Z The soundbite is super...citizens transform city government...the reality will be seamier. Can anyone say sausage-making? MyQuest 2012-06-21T16:14:47Z PocketGOPer comment-69827 2012-06-21T16:01:58Z 2012-06-21T16:01:58Z This is very unfortunate in that the Commission will cost way more than projections. We are laying off police officers and McCarty wants to waste city funds for this? PocketGOPer 2012-06-21T16:01:58Z keepitreal comment-69824 2012-06-21T15:26:55Z 2012-06-21T15:26:55Z Does the City of Sacramento need to look at its' Charter? Yep. Does it need to do it now? Nope. The City Council just voted to lay off employees then the majority of those same people voted to spend at least $600,000+ (I feel that number is way low, they spent $5m in LA, whose process Sac is modeling their commission after) on this commission. Makes no sense at all, none whatsoever!!! keepitreal 2012-06-21T15:26:55Z