STORYLINE Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Mayor Kevin Johnson gets help to 'play nice' with council

by Melissa Corker, published on June 26, 2012 at 5:45 AM

Storyline: Politics RSS Feed

1 of 6
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 6
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

As soon as Mayor Kevin Johnson declared victory in his bid for re-election, he moved out key members of his City Hall staff and brought in two longtime city employees, leading some to question if he is doubling down on arena efforts in his second term – or just trying to shore up support on the City Council playground.

“The city does better when people are working together,” political analyst Andrew Acosta said. “His ability to work together and have a relationship with council members has not been demonstrated so far.”

Acosta was a key campaign advisor in the June primary elections for local council candidates Kevin McCarty (District 6), Bonnie Pannell (District 8) and Joe Yee (District 4).

The mayor’s former chief of staff, Kunal Merchant, and Special Assistant R.E. Graswich have taken lead positions with Think Big Sacramento, a coalition of business and government interests dedicated to economic development in the railyards. To replace them, Johnson brought in public-sector veterans Cassandra Jennings and Patti Bisharat as policy directors and administrative leaders.

Chief executives commonly make staff changes when they go into a second term, but it appears Johnson brought in people with extensive public sector experience to help him in what some consider one of his weakest areas: playing well with others.

It’s no secret that the mayor has clashed on occasion with fellow council members. Not only have they disagreed about arena issues and the strong mayor initiative, Johnson has found himself on opposite sides of the table on numerous budget and city service issues, too. Some conflicts – such as a few curt words exchanged at the dais during council meetings – have proven to be fairly benign, while others have created communication chasms resulting in more than just bruised egos. After a weeks-long rift during the redistricting process, for example, Johnson went so far as to put his political weight behind the opponent of current District 8 Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell in the June primary.

But Johnson’s candidate, former Sacramento NAACP President Betty Williams, lost her bid to take the council seat from Pannell, and Johnson will have to find ways to mend that (and many other) council fences.

Johnson may be trying to change his ways in his second term by bringing Jennings and Bisharat on board: Together, they bring to the table six decades of city government experience, according to Joaquin McPeek, the mayor’s spokesman.

That’s good news for Johnson, who came into the mayor’s office with plenty of ambition and drive but with zero political experience. For a mayor who scores high on charisma, he gets low marks on ability to finesse an often tenuous interplay with fellow elected leaders at City Hall.

Craig Powell, president of political watchdog group Eye on Sacramento, said the mayor’s decision to bring in two city government powerhouses will do a lot of good in the way of building – or rebuilding – relationships on the City Council.

“They have worked hand-in-glove with everyone on council over the years, so having them there will make dealing with the council easier,” Powell said.

Jennings, in particular, has worked closely with all levels of city government and all city departments in Sacramento. Bisharat has a strong financial and administrative background and will act as a chief advisor on items before the city council. Both women will have key oversight on administrative activities in the mayor's office, McPeek said, including the day-to-day operations.

“Maybe the mayor is saying he needs people that have a wealth of knowledge that can put more meat on the bones of some of the initiatives he’d like to tout,” Acosta said. “Right now they’re just floating out there. That’s a problem for the guy.”

Jennings and Bisharat may be the key to the mayor’s fence-mending efforts on the City Council but, by taking on the day-to-day council-oriented tasks in the mayor’s office, they will also free up time and energy for Johnson to keep his eye on what might be the real prize of his second term: an entertainment and sports complex in the railyards.

“The mayor has spent an enormous amount of time and resources on getting an arena built,” political analyst Doug Elmets said. “He’s not going to be satisfied until he’s got some blueprint for the future that includes an entertainment facility.”

With Merchant and Graswich in the Think Big think tank, they can be Johnson’s eyes and ears in the push for getting an arena built – something the mayor has been keen on since the Kings’ owners, the Maloofs, started sending smoke signals about a move out of Sacramento.

“It’s a grind to work in the mayor’s office day to day,” Elmets said. “(Merchant and Graswich) will have larger, more entrepreneurial roles with Think Big.”

Elmets said those goals include building a new concept for an arena and moving the community along economically, but stopped short of calling the new positions “rewards” for work well done in the mayor’s service during his first term.

“I’d say it’s more of a recognition that they understand the mayor’s goals and objectives and have the credibility – certainly with Johnson – to try to implement something that is going to be challenging in and of itself.”

Should the arena be the backbone of Johnson’s second term? Acosta says no. The mayor would do better to create an agenda that speaks to the people – and strong mayor and the arena are not it.

“How does your agenda fit with where the people are? I think they have to connect,” Acosta said. “You can’t just come up with something that has no real connection to what voters are feeling and expect it to fly.”


JOHNSON’S FUTURE

What will the future hold for Johnson? Elmets suggests Johnson may have a higher political calling, perhaps even in the role of governor of California.

“The one thing I wouldn’t do is underestimate Kevin Johnson,” Elmets said. “Particularly now that he’s been re-elected. I think he’s looking at the road ahead and not focusing on what’s transpiring in the rear-view mirror.”

As far as Johnson’s long-term future, Acosta said he expects it may include higher office – whether that would be a successful move for Johnson is another story, Acosta said.

“When you don’t play well with others, where are you going to go? The state Legislature? Probably not,” Acosta said. “I would assume he wants to go to the next level, but what that will be – we don’t know. I’m not sure he knows.”

Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Facebook and on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

edited on  June 26, 2012 | 8:20 AM
Either that, or Graswich and Merchant are just there to clean up the mess left by previous "Think Big" director Chris Lehane--and work behind the scenes on an even less economically viable arena concept than the trainwreck that collapsed in on itself earlier this year, while Johnson's new chief of staff tries to think of ways to oppose the idea of changing the city charter after four years of insisting that it's time to change the city charter.

I guess I just don't see how trying to do exactly the same things (push a public-financed arena nobody wants, and privately-directed charter changes nobody wants) but with different people pushing his agenda, counts as "playing nice." Nor does the idea that Johnson has his sights on bigger things than running Sacramento inspire much confidence. This article gives us the sense that Johnson hasn't learned the administrative skills or interpersonal abilities that the job required when he took it in the first place--the past four years have been spent avoiding learning the job. If he can't do the job he has now adequately, what makes him suited for even bigger and more complex duties in higher office, that require the same skills he lacks but in greater quantity?
7 5
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 9:48 AM
Mr. Burg, without addressing each of your comments point by point, may I just say that your opinions lose some credibility with me when you say "nobody wants" the arena or call it "publicly-financed". Regardless of the percentage breakdown of where the money for the arena would come from, it's obviously conceived as a public/private partnership. If you want people to have any appreciation for what you're saying, at least reflect some accuracy.
4 6
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 11:23 AM
A partnership to me implies that the partners share in the risk and the benefits equally. That does not seem to be what is happening here so I do not believe this is what most people mean when they say partnership at all.
2 3
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 11:40 AM
Actually a partnership can be disproportionate; it all depends upon the agreement. Hence terms like limited partner, silent partner, general partner, etc.
2 2
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 11:45 AM
Then, in an era of transparency and collaboration, perhaps the mayor's office should clarify just what kind of partnership they have in mind. Because to most people a "partner" who picks up 65% of the cost but considers himself lucky if he breaks even on a deal is not .. well, a partner.
3 1
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 12:43 PM
Okay then-- to clarify, an arena that nobody seems to want enough to pay for it, including Sacramento's voters and the owners of the prospective major-league tenants, except for the real estate developers who stand to make a lot of money on the deal. And I suppose 10% support from AEG, whose main interest is keeping the Kings out of southern California for a few decades lest it upset their $500 million media deal there, counts as a public/private partnership of sorts (assuming they're still actually in the deal.)

evak: There is no need for transparency and collaboration: "Think Big" is a separate organization from city government, thus there is no requirement for public disclosure, open meetings or other open process. It also obscures the presence of assorted "silent" partners in this public/private partnership.
3 1
REPLY
edited on  June 26, 2012 | 2:03 PM
William: I get that Think Big is not covered by the Brown Act. Heck, I only heard that they were in Southern California this weekend, meeting with AEG through the proverbial Sacramento grapevine. It certainly wasn't announced or mentioned in the press. But since there is such close collaboration between the Mayor's office and Think Big (indeed, at times it seems that the Mayor can play nice only with Think Big...) there 'should" be further disclosure of what they're up to.

Because at times, the semi-official goings on surrounding the arena and the rumors they generate provoke a politics that have all the hallmarks of the way politics is done in the Middle East and other emerging democracies: by rumor, by conspiracy theory, and by huge distrust. Thus far, the only ingredient we're missing is fear.
4 1
REPLY
June 27, 2012 | 9:24 AM
nobody wanted to sign the STOP petitions either.
2 1
REPLY
July 3, 2012 | 12:52 PM
What public-private partnership was that again? AEG has now officially bailed:

http://blogs.sacbee.com/city-beat/2012/07/mayor-johnson-arena-plan-b-wont-work-focus-will-broaden.html

""The economics just didn't pencil out," the mayor said, describing AEG's concerns. AEG had previously agreed to contribute $58.75 million toward the arena in exchange for operating the facility and receiving a large chunk of the profits."

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/city-beat/2012/07/mayor-johnson-arena-plan-b-wont-work-focus-will-broaden.html#storylink=cpy
0 1
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 9:10 AM
If the Mayor wants to run for something "bigger," he has plenty of options. I can see him running or Lieutenant Governor or possibly even State Senate in 2014 depending on Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Darrell Steinberg's moves. He'd do well to start mending those fences and start doing some real nitty-gritty work on making Sacramento an even better place to be. Everyone looks at "big picture," often at the expense of the little things that are so important to the citizenry-- yard waste collection, filling potholes, making sure we have enough beat cops on the street, and safe schools with good educational opportunities for all.

If we want to make Sacramento a world-class city, we have to focus on both the big and little picture. If Mayor Johnson can accomplish that balancing act, there's no telling where he can go in elected politics.
2 5
REPLY
edited on  June 26, 2012 | 11:49 AM
A world class city is one that if it sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. There aren't that many such in the world. London is one because of the banking industry; LA is another because of Hollywood but basically we can count "world class cities" on the fingers of one hand and, if we really stretch the definition, two hands.

So it's unlikely that we will be able to "make" Sacramento into such a city. That does not however mean that we should not make Sacramento a better place to live: a place with parks, great streets, river crossings, great waterfronts, cops, fire-fighters, schools, libraries, small businesses, great human-sized neighborhoods--all the things that people want in a place where they live.

And all things that the mayor has consistently refused to so much as glance at.
6 1
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 12:45 PM
Just when I was hoping that ridiculous phrase had finally gone out of fashion...ick!
7 1
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 2:55 PM
It's JUST a turn of phrase haha!

What I mean by that term is a city that is capable of more than it is. I don't want London or Paris or Los Angeles-lite, but something that attracts business, is known for being clean and ecologically sound, and is a place people would want to come to.

I'd love to see a city that grows and develops in a smart way but still holds tight to it's past.

Now, having said that awful, awful term (and yes, I recognize it's awfulness), we SHOULD be striving to be better than we are, right?
2 1
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 3:41 PM
Of course we should be. But having visited London, been born in Moscow, been to Rome and Los Angeles and several other major cities that some would call "world class"--I have to say that to me at least "world class" is not necessarily "better"; just the opposite in fact.

Heck, I can't walk down a London street without bumping into at least one person per block. And yes, a lot of that is that I'm clumsy and, as my husband would say "Don't watch where I'm going" but I don't have that problem in Sacramento. So, for me at least, walking in Sacramento is a far more pleasant experience than walking in London. And London's a bona fide "world class city".
0 1
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 5:46 PM
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be better than we are. The difference is the realization that Sacramento is already a great city, with potential for more greatness, while KJ and his minions (and his private-sector backers) start with the assumption that Sacramento is horrible as it is, and should aspire to this mystical "W* C* C*" status, a status conferred, apparently, by endless gullibility and a willingness to accept (ad pay for) disastrously bad ideas.
4 1
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 7:50 PM
Mr. Burg, you are actually right on the money with that. Sacramento IS a great place. I moved here from Roseville a couple years ago and couldn't be happier living in Natomas. Well, I COULD be happier, but you know what I mean! ;)

It would be great to see uniform streetlights, benches, bus stops and traffic lights over a new arena. It's all small stuff, but it says something about us as a city. And if there IS going to be an arena, something that pays homage to our past is preferred over some abstract modern eye sore. But I digress...

I don't know if our current mayor is interested in doing the little stuff that makes a city better. It's not glamorous, but it's necessary. When we can't afford to keep our pools open but we can afford three SMI proposals and a failed arena proposal (who DIDN'T know the Maloofs were too broke to make that happen?), there definitely needs to be a shift in priorities.
3 1
REPLY
June 26, 2012 | 9:48 PM
I'm not all that worried about the architectural style of an arena--there isn't really a "historic" style appropriate to a contemporary sports arena, but modern architecture is well-suited to such tasks, and urban downtowns are an excellent place to juxtapose new architecture alongside historic buildings. I am far more concerned about who pays for such a building--the current NBA business model is based around cities paying as much as possible in return for the tentative and always-revocable boon of an NBA team. Even the so-called sweetheart deal currently underway in Seattle (the one that some say might woo the Kings away) is based on $200 million of the city's money.

Our current mayor isn't interested in doing little stuff at all--everything has to be BIG or it's beneath his notice. Which is really too bad, because that's exactly where the most exciting ideas are these days. The era for BIG went out with manscaping and adjustable-rate mortgages. We're in an era when the best cities are those that make a million little plans--instead of enormous Hero Projects dependent on enormous public largesse, going lot-by-lot and block-by-block, finding ways to use the latest in guerrilla urbanism to re-knit the urban fabric. And there is a whole heck of a lot of that going on right now--an urban renaissance based on bike racks and food trucks and street music and pop-up shops and yarn-bombing, fixing up and walking around and putting on funky little events all over the city, celebrating city life in low-investment, high-return ways.

Here's a link to an excellent essay on that topic: called, with just a little irony in light of the Mayor's chief initiative, "Stop Thinking Big."

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/16/stop_thinking_big/
5 1
REPLY
June 27, 2012 | 8:29 AM
I agree wholeheartedly-- with exception to the manscaping. ;)

I absolutely love not only the food trucks, but the mini-conventions that take place under the freeway thanks to SactoMoFo are such fun places to gather and see friends, relax, AND use under-utilized space.

It's also great to see urban art in the alley behind the new Blackbird restaurant-- if you haven't seen these giant birds dressed in 1800's garb, it's a fun and unique way to spruce up our alleys.

It would be cool to see the mayor and the city council find the geographic center of the city and start supporting projects right in the heart to improve our quality of life and just spread out. I also want all those pools open before the temperature hits 105 again, but maybe all this is just wishful thinking...
1 0
REPLY
June 27, 2012 | 11:31 AM
Anyone miss Heather yet?
3 2
REPLY
June 27, 2012 | 10:12 PM
I'm sure the builders who paved over the Natomas Flood Plane do
0 2
REPLY
June 27, 2012 | 3:41 PM
The Sacramento way of life does, indeed, make Sacramento a special to live. But there is danger in being complascent about our treasured lifestyle. The danger is that Sacramento is economically very sick and opportunities for our young are disappearing. The poor quality of K-12 schools and the declining state of higher education (particularly our community colleges), high local unemployment, high business failure rates, underwater mortgages, rapidly rising living costs, a devastated construction industry, a falling property tax base, steadily declining public services, our unfocused and conflicted city government and our unfriendly business climate are all chronic and serious threats to our way of life.

A lack of economic opportunity is driving too many of our promising young people to other cities and states for better educational opportunities and stronger career prospects. We are not attracting private investment as we should. Our commercial corridors - including J Street - are in real decline. Our more brittle neighborhoods are being hammered by the foreclosure crisis, falling values and negative equity. Our crime and gang problems are already among the worst in the state and all indicators (declining police staffing, prisoner and parolee releases) point to worsening crime problems. Our city faces the same problems as Stockton but simply not as pronounced.

We cannot continue to lose our most promising young people to outbound migration or lose our disadvantaged youth people to despair and have any realistic hope of holding on to our treasured lifestyle for long. We cannot immunize ourselves from our economic realities no matter how cozy our individual economic circumstances may seem to be.

Instead, we must forge a community consensus and commitment to make real economic recovery our first, second and third priority. We can no longer afford to be distracted by other issues. And we have to honest with ourselves and acknowledge that all efforts to date to restore our local economy have failed, whether local, state or federal measures. We cannot keep doing the same thing over and over again and keep expecting a different result.

We have to come together to create the conditions that will foster real private sector growth and recovery or we will see our city continues its decline. It's that simple. That should be the lead agenda item at every city council meeting, the subject of lead editorials in the Bee, the focus of investigative reports on TV news programs and Topic #1 at community meetings and on local blogs. All other issues should take a back seat to the imperative of local economic recovery.
4 1
REPLY
June 27, 2012 | 6:10 PM
Sacramento could be a great little city, but its not currently and a continued focus on building a basketball arena is not going to make it into one.

Sacramento should consider taking a lesson from the late James Q. Wilson and his "broken windows" theory of urban disorder. If Mayor KJ and the City Council would start focusing on the small things, like fixing broken sidewalks, filling potholes, enforcing vagrancy laws, prohibiting camping or loitering in public places, this city would be much better. The city could go a long ways towards revitalizing K Street if it just cleared all of the homeless bums out of the area and out of Cesar Chavez park. I went by the park on Sunday and it looked like a homeless convention.

Second Saturday would be better if there was a visible police presence and the gangbangers learned that their behavior is not tolerated.

Also, rather than building an arena, funds could be used to build an outdoor concert venue on the river. Whether or not the Kings stay or go, this would provide a place for concerts that currently won't go to PBP because of the terrible acoustics.

Finally, how about some free parking or at least validated parking by businesses on the weekends in Midtown? Turn off the meters and more people would make the decision to visit businesses in the area.

This could be a great little town, but it's going to take some work.
2 2
REPLY
June 28, 2012 | 8:16 AM
Too bad we're a big city rather than a small town, and small-town solutions (like "free parking everywhere" and "cops kick out the undesirables") don't work in big cities. We could be a greater big city, but we have to start by abandoning this small-town attitude that expects downtown Sacramento to function just like a suburban mall.
4 2
REPLY
June 28, 2012 | 10:29 AM
Downtown Sacramento will never be a suburban mall, but getting harassed by panhandlers shouldn't be part of it's "charm".
1 1
REPLY
June 28, 2012 | 10:21 PM
Unfortunately, homelessness is a problem that all big cities have to deal with--downtown Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Chicago etcetera are just as beset with panhandlers (some folks seem to think that other cities don't have a problem with homelessness--my guess is that they have never been to other big cities, at least not their downtowns.) We don't have the option of just simply kicking them out in the direction of the nearest major city, the way that smaller cities like Roseville do, because we're that major city!

Although dealing with homelessness is one of the places where Johnson has done a pretty decent job--yes, there are a lot of homeless, due in no small part to the massive economic instability of the past few years and traumatic cuts to our social safety nets. But there are about a thousand or so fewer than there might have been, largely because the city partnered with local nonprofits and faith organizations, to complete, guess what, a lot of simple, relatively low-cost projects like rehabbing old motels on Stockton Boulevard into transitional and longer-term housing. There is still a lot to solve in that department--like the "Safe Ground" issue, and how to get Roseville et al to stop dumping their homeless population on our doorstep. But acting like a big city means addressing those problems using the tools and resources available--which, in this era, tends to be a lot of small, mundane, unglamorous and relatively inexpensive stuff instead of the big, shiny stuff.
1 2
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background