Happy New year Sacramento. Thought I would kick off ‘09 with a fun little romp through the common fallacies used by people in argument within the context of the strong mayoral referendum that keeps peeking in and out of the news. if you are a big supporter of mayor Johnson’s referendum, you may want to check out a new web site called reformsacramento.com, where you can join the movement. If you’re against the idea, if the poll results here were any indication, you’re in good company. And now for my list of favorite fallacies in argument..
“YOU voted for change, so you should support the strong mayor referendum”
This is an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks the person instead of the argument. Ad hominem is one of the most common forms of fallacy and it can be found in nearly any argumentative conversation between two or more people.
“Well, you don’t want to support the strong mayor referendum because you just don’t like Kevin Johnson”
This is the famous “straw man” fallacy because it hastily attributes an indefensible position to the opposition. Straw man arguments are routinely used to argue against religion (i.e. “In the Old Testament God ordered murders, so he is clearly not a God of love”), although you can find them in abundance anywhere people are engaged in political and/or religious debate.
“Mayor Gavin Newsom is in a strong mayor system and he supports the idea, so it must be a good idea.”
This is a fallacy called “argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)” because it uses the words of an “expert” or authority as the basis of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports the argument.
“If we don’t act quickly on the strong mayor referendum, Sacramento faces severe fiscal danger.”
This is a fallacy called argumentum ad baculum because it is based on an appeal to fear or a threat.
“Thousands of Sacramentans support the strong mayoral referendum so you should, too”
This fallacy is known as ad populum (or “bandwagon”) because it concludes an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. This is one of the most popular tools advertsiing companies use to sell their products.
“The city is run by a city manager who reports to the City Council, which often functions as nine different bosses. With such a convoluted system, it is no wonder the city has difficulty moving forward” (from the reformsacramento.com web site)
This is a fallacy called “non sequitur” (Latin for “It does not follow) because the argument’s conclusion (the city can’t move forward) is predicated on an unsupported premise (the reporting arrangement in convoluted).
“If the city does not adopt a strong mayor system, there will be no accountability, and without accountability there will be no leadership, and without leadership there will be no progress, and..”
This is known as slipperly slope fallacy because it falsely presupposes one event will trigger another and another and another.. ad nauseam.
“Other cities have strong mayor systems, so it is the right arrangement for Sacramento, too”
This is a fallacy called “Appeal to Common Practice” (or “common belief”) because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.
“People need to make up their minds: either they want accountability or they don’t. Vote against strong mayor at your own peril.”
This is the fallacy of “false dilemma” (also known as “black and white” or “false dichotomy”). It is fallacious because the arguments both for or against strong mayor are not hinged solely on the premises stated.
“Kevin Johnson is a leadership-minded individual and there is no reason he is not prepared to be an effective strong mayor”
This fallacy is called “Appeal to ignorance” (ad ignorantiam) because the “no reason” part takes advantage of the fact that the uninformed observer may not be familiar with the many real reasons Kevin Johnson himself may not make a good strong mayor.
“Weak mayor systems are not conducive to progress, so Sacramento will never enjoy progress unless it gets a strong mayor”
This fallacy is called “Affirming the consequent.” The only way to avoid the fallacy would be if the speaker could prove a weak mayor system is the only or most likely condition that leads to lack of progress.
“Do you want an accountable government or not!?”
This is fallacious question (known as “complex” or “loaded” question in argument) if asked by a supporter of the strong mayor system in that if the respondent answers no they lose credibility, and if they answer yes, then naturally…
“Those who are aware of leadership principles should understand why KJ wants a strong mayor system.”
This fallacy is called “equivocation” because it legislatively leverages the word leadership to support its argument. In other words one could easiy argue a true leadership-minded approach would be to hold public forums instead of simply forcing one’s will on the public in the form of a ballot measure.
On a closing note, I was recently told KJ did not even check in with Steve Cohn and Sandy Sheedy 9his ardent council supporters) prior to hoisting up this strong mayor referendum. Can anyone corroborate?
Question: Why isn’t logic/reasoning a required course in high school?
Hilarious. I have never learned about fallacies and this was a good primer. Nice one Joe Joe
Joe- Answer: Because public schools do not intend to actually educate a mass that can argue back. Those people cause revolutionary change…
Happy New Year, Joe! Excellent first post to kick it off…I am looking forward to more of your insightful and humorous insights this year, my friend.
I like your style! I have just been turned onto your blog. Finally, someone that knows logic enough to take apart all of the jumbled arguments these Sac politicians make. Reading the newspapers must be torture to you!
Throughout history education has been revolutionary. More recently after WW2 most people could finally afford to send their kids to college. It led to the civil rights movement, woman’s right’s movement, consumer rights movement, the peace movement and the environmental movement. Society benefited a whole lot but the ruling old older didn’t like it. It makes sense to deprive people of knowledge as much as possible, at least from their perspective, hence why logic isn’t taught in high school.
What’s wrong with the strong mayor system anyways? City government is so slow and bureaucratic. The city needs a major shake up and a strong executive. As of now, too many egos and interests control the budget. If you know anything about the legislative branch there is never a shortage of pet projects, favors, and handouts on their agenda.
You believe that Johnson can get what he wants done under the current mayoral system. You cite Fargo as an example. But when has Fargo ever challenged the status quo? She was the status quo. Or at least the picture perfect example of it. Her accomplishments were nothing more than give aways to developers. If she ever fought the council I doubt she ever could have succeeded. She would have been overridden. Johnson is seeking to change that and he’s going straight to the public.
The citizens did the right thing by electing Johnson. Now the long term success of the city is dependent on him succeeding as mayor. He talks a good game, I say let him run with the ball.
I don’t have any criticism of the strong mayor system. I acknowledge its merits. My issue is with Kevin Johnson’s lack of experience. I would personally like to see him “learn the game” for a good year or so before making him team captain. He is the equivalent of a rookie fresh out of college, and he’s asking the franchise to let him run the organization in the middle of training camp his first year. In my opinion that is an absurd proposition.
Has anyone stopped to consider what Joe Serna accomplished as a “weak” mayor? And correct me if I’m wrong, but Joe wasn’t even a full time city employee, was he?
I would also argue the contention that Fargo didn’t get anything done. She accomplished a TON of things as weak mayor. That is not to say she accomplished the RIGHT things, but never the less she still got many of her pet projects done and had a huge INFLUENCE on city policy, city management. Also important to note it is said she led the charge to replace Bob Thomas with a new city manager. Bear in mind, the city council can fire the city manager and vote for a new one.
In sum, I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to demonstrate why KJ can not be effective in a weak mayoral structure yet. Furthermore, don’t we want to see him work within the system for a little while? I would love to see him hoist up some ideas and have them shot down by the council a few times so he can at least get his feet in terms of resolving conflict through negotiation rather than through mandate.
I say put the strong mayor referendum up for vote next November or later. Let’s make him work for our support and prove himself within the constraints of the current system for a while.
Just my .02
Interesting. Granted the average person can reason to some degree, and a vast number of people can deduce logic. But I tend to think if the vast majority of people were in fact logical we wouldn’t have many of the politicians we do, and many of the marketing pitches that are so successful would be rendered completely ineffective. Do you agree?
Some questions I have pondered a lot lately given the abundance of propagandist rhetoric falling out of the mouths of so many politicians’ these days: Doesn’t the use of fallacy in politics presuppose audience ignorance? If the answer is yes, is this perhaps why politicians like Kevin Johnson (i.e. those who pitch their ideas using tools of the advertising trade like fallacy), struggle to gain the support of those who can see through the smoke and mirrors? Is this the reason people like JFK were so adored: that is, because they spoke frankly and sincerely from the heart rather than through a SPIN filter?
And finally, the big kahuna question: if you’re a politician, and you truly care about the advancement of PEOPLE in your given sphere of influence, don’t you have some ethical obligation to speak frankly with them, and EDUCATE them, rather than simply treating them like a flock of blind sheep consumers in your sales vertical?
Just a few Monday morning musings..
Super article and thread here.
In response to your questions Joe I will just say that I do believe Johnson’s rhetoric cup overfloweth and if he doesn’t get down to earth with voters and get more sincere he will struggle mightily to gain the credibility he needs to get things done on the strength of his mandates. Sincerity is not a quality I associate with Johnson oddly
I will also say your questions are crucial ones in that they really sum up the challenges Johnson faces in the coming months/years.
WOW your last few postings blew me away. Sacramento is the city of trees (distractions/ anyway the wind blows marketing pitches….) But hang on Joe has caused a wind, shaking leaves off the trees, of reasoning that many cannot argue with. My hat, if I wore one-,
would definitely be off to you. My friend what logic, WOW I am impressed 
And yes Joe in answer to your first posting; logic and reasoning should be a required high school course and for more reasons than one. Perhaps if it were we could also disarm a great deal of youth violence…
Oh my gosh I have been studying logic in a course I am taking. This is awesome! We have been learning these exact sorts of things. Now that I am becoming aware of these things I have noticed them everywhere I look. Better still I notice how people use them to argue and how easily they can be dismantled if you can identify them. Joe your point about how straw man fallacy is used to argue against the existence of God is bang on. This is why you can’t have an intelligent debate with a lot of people who are science-minded because they pile those straw mans up like gangbusters to win the argument.
But any way you cut the cake fallacy is used to sell an idea and religious types do it too —”There is love so there must be a God.” This is why arguing for God against someone who supports science is an exercise in futility.. because debate by its very nature relies on empirical evidence. That means it loathes circumstantial evidence and the science-predisposed debater can easily tear down the person arguing for God by presenting mountains of scientific evidence to support their position.
Politics is quite a different story though and all of us can debate our positions skillfully with the right tools. Thanks for sharing some Joe!!!
Great stuff; thanks all.
Well yes, but this is why understanding the basics of one’s religion is paramount to arguing it (let alone loving it and living it).. right?
I have found there lies a GIGANTIC chasm between merely “believing in God” versus “knowing God,” and I believe those of the former persuasion naturally have a difficult time arguing for His existence (I was one such person for a long time). That said, I agree with you that it is senseless to get in an argument over God’s existence–UNLESS one has a compelling testimony for it.
For example:
If I say, “I don’t fly anymore because I was once in a plane crash,” it’s very unlikely you’re going to be able to persuade me to start flying again, even if you present a mountain of empirical evidence demonstrating, e.g., how flying is safer then cars, et al.
Compare to this hypothetical testimonial: “I believe in God because when I converted to Christianity and starting living a Christian life and started praying to God, my speech impediment went away and I lost 40 pounds.”
There is pretty much nothing you can do or say that is going to change the convert’s mind because they are CONVINCED they have personally WITNESSED God’s divinity.
Important to note that this is why TESTIMONIALS are so powerful.. because they bring compelling PERSONALIZED experience into the foray. I’ve noticed most political rhetoric around the strong mayor initiative includes very little testimonial and could benefit from a LOT more. Example: KJ’s “I’m a 3rd generation Sacramentan” was compelling testimonial during the election season.
Fortune favors the bold. KJ is shaking things up which is why I voted for him. I like KJ going straight to the people instead of relying on the hacks at city hall. It undermines the council which is the point. If this strong mayoral referendum succeeds it’s gonna scare the shit out of the council. They better start putting the interests of the public ahead of their ambitions and developer buddies because the people have had enough.
Johnson made public safety his priority in the campaign. As we all know this city doesn’t take public safety seriously. I don’t know how Johnson can succeed working with the current council. Sure he may have been endorsed by a few members but that’s because they knew he was gonna won and wanted to be on the right side. It doesn’t mean that they’ve seen the light or anything. I’m convinced that Johnson knows there are too many entrenched interests that will fight tooth and nail against him. Rather than waste a year punching a wall he’s gonna have the wall demolished now.
I agree, but what assurances do we have that KJ in a strong mayor position won’t do more of the same? Did you see the list of people on his adviser team the Bee published? Mostly all from the development community..
Agreed
Granted it would be challenge, BUT experience tells us those who exercise the virtues of leadership can INFLUENCE enormous change — without a title and without legislative power. Yes, it’s harder to do, BUT it forces the leader to build consensus, and consensus is how people truly get behind ideas and personally work hard to promote them and enforce them.
A few of the virtues:
* Courage
* Passion
* Wisdom
* Vision
* Compassion
* Perseverance
I do fully understand that the crime problem IS a time-bound issue but I also believe more EDUCATION must be done on the resident’s part to SHOW the council members –especially through testimony– what is happening on our streets and what must be done to correct it. Making KJ strong mayor does not in any way shape or form assure the crime problem will be addressed effectively.
“Do you want an accountable government or not!?”
This is fallacious question (known as “complex” or “loaded” question in argument) if asked by a supporter of the strong mayor system in that if the respondent answers no they lose credibility, and if they answer yes, then naturally…
Your analysis of arguments is interesting. I would like to focus on the one above. I believe a person could respond to the question by saying that he or she believe in the current system of accountability, which is that voters choose the city council, and the city council chooses an administrator. So the reform proposes that the administrator be directly accountable to voter. Therefore if the question was more fair it would ask, “Do you believe in direct accountability of government or indirect accountability?”
Another issue to this is that just because you believe in direct accountability doesn’t mean you believe that should apply to the the executive system. You might only think it should apply to the judicial system or the legislative system. Or you could believe in national and state direct accountability but not local.
I suppose a strong argument for retaining the current arrangement is that council members are more familiar with problems that than voters and therefore can better decide an who should be the administrator. But I believe that the change would be good because we would finally have a separateness between our city’s executive and legislative power’s and voters would finally get to directly decide on their chief administrator.
Politics is politics. I don’t mind KJ surrounding himself with developers so long as he serves the public first. We’ve had a mayor and a council that couldn’t care less about the public for the past several years. That hasn’t gone us much.
I don’t buy the building consensus line of thought. Consensus is the status quo. Lincoln ended slavery by smashing the south. FDR ramrodded the New Deal through. LBJ arm twisted to pass civil rights. If these men had built consensus they wouldn’t have accomplished anything and they would have been forgotten by history as so many presidents in the past have.
Making KJ a strong mayor is not the end all be all solution to our crime issue or the other issues the city faces. It is just the first step.
So much for the transparency in govenment that KJ promised:
“Kim Mack, chair of the recently created Sacramentans for Accountable Government, said the group will hold its meeting at 6 p.m. at the Grand Ballroom on J Street.
Mack said people who signed up at the mayor’s swearing-in ceremony have received invitations to attend. But she said members of the media will be excluded from the event.”
http://www.my58.com/news/18416295/detail.html
This proposal is DOA. If Kevin wants to move the city to a strong mayor form of government, fine. But this is not the way to do it. Ramming a pre-planned proposal down our throats and calling it a “grassroots effort” is an insult to astroturf.
By the way Kevin, how’s that gang summit you prommised us going?
Consensus is not the status quo; it is a means to an end to AFFECT the status quo. And consensus needn’t be all inclusive as you suggest. I agree all inclusive consensus almost always leads to “analysis paralysis.” When I speak of consensus I am speaking of consensus within a limited subset of stakeholders. In other words, as it stands, it seems to me the only people consenting to the strong mayor idea are KJ backers or those who have a stake in him gaining executive powers (police union, fire union, organizations that could not otherwise achieve their agendas if they had to rely on the city council).
Back to fallacy again: “Ramrodding” mandates may be the remedy for, e.g., abolishing slavery, but that doesn’t mean it is the right remedy for passing city charter referendums–especially when the recipient’s track record engenders questions about experience and/or skill set. And in any case, if you want to get historical, “ramrodding” is usually the precursor to war.
Well, it is one, potential first step.
I could not agree more. Some “coalition” huh?
And what happened to the strong mayor “discussions” and “exploration” the Day 1 document promised? Are those off the table now?
Again I want to stress I think the strong mayor idea has merit. My concern is not with the strong mayor system per se; my concern is the unproven aspect of the person proposing it. There is nothing anywhere that gives us any assurances he will be effective in this capacity. And what happens if he ends up being a lousy CEO? It’s not like a board of directors could vote him out. We would be stuck and literally powerless to do anything other than recall.
I don’t think a year of learning the ropes and proving oneself is an unreasonable proposition.
wowza who let the dogs out! this web site rocks! I love this thread
I studied fallacies in college. I agree they should be taught in high school too. It’s funny how even though you listed all of them people still used them in their comments here. Hahahaha. Fallacy is so much a part of the American dialog that if you took them out of it very few people could even have an argument
Great stuff!!!!!
I tend to agree that the strong mayor idea is good but KJ needs to earn his stripes first. Our council is not so dismal that it can’t continue to function for another year. City manager just got 12 cops added to the force too. Not like they are sitting around doing nothing. Let the guy prove himself.
It’s seems as if most of the gripes here have to do with Johnson himself. From experience, credibility, and character. The election just ended and it’s as if the election isn’t over in some people’s minds. If you guys had these many doubts why bother voting for him? Seems to me you would have been happier with Fargo. The whole lesser of the two evils thing is a cop out too. I’m not saying your points aren’t valid. They are. These questions are important. But if the strong mayoral referendum fails now I doubt there will be another chance for a long time. I really think it’s important for changing the city. It’s conventional thinking in political circles to pursue your agenda with full force immediately after your election. That’s when you have the most energy and momentum. Johnson is doing that and I hope he succeeds.
More lies from the Johnson camp:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Supporters have until Friday, Jan. 16 to collect more than 32,000 signatures to put a so-called strong mayor proposal before voters.
(Good luck with that)
But even if it makes a possible June ballot, how the proposed system would work is up for debate.
According to a document circulated by supporters, the city council will have more responsibility under the proposal.
But according to the official nonpartisan summary prepared by the city attorney’s office, the amendments sought by Mayor Kevin Johnson would reduce the council’s current powers. The changes would give him veto power over the council, as well as give his office many of the powers currently held by the city manager.
(Why lie about what you want to do? Is this the honest government we were just promised?)
“Well it is a grassroots effort,” Kim Mack said. “It’s something we need to do to help the city.”
Mack is head a recently created group called Sacramentans for Accountable Government, which, according to a Johnson representative, plans to spend $200,000 on the petition drive.
(Grassroots efforst don’t have $200,000 to spend on ballot drives that were crafted behind closed doors.)
“We know it’s a tall task. We need to have 32,000 confirmed signatures, so obviously we need more than that,” Mack said.
Workers earn 50 cents a signature, and less than a week after they started, Johnson’s supporters said the petition campaign is going strong.
(Grassroots efforts don’t have to rely on paid signature gatherers, But if you want to reach that goal, you should pay them a higher bounty. BTW, the going rate is about $1.00 per signature.)
Mack’s group held a meeting Monday night at the Grand Ballroom on J Street. Mack said people who signed up at the mayor’s swearing-in ceremony have received invitations to attend. But she said members of the media will be excluded from the event.
(Again, why the media blackout? What does this “grassroots effort” have to hide?)
http://www.kcra.com/news/18417595/detail.html
How you gonna black the media out? What ? Sorry but this strong mayor thing reeks like stanky shoes and I’ll be damned if I’m going to wear them.
NO
There’s my vote. Count it.
Sons of Lib—We voted for Johnson because he is high on public safety and we thought he would use his “leadership” skills to build consensus to get people behind his agenda. He lied. Now he is nuts if he thinks he can ramrod this down our throats. He wants to be boss get it? we don’t hire him to be boss. we hired him to be mayor.
“In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion ——-and NOT by force—–the art of reasoning becomes of first importance” -Thomas Jefferson
written by Lauren:
It sounds like she feels intruded upon by Kevin Johnson. Mainly why I want to quote her is to make a point. When we vote for mayor we normally assume that he will be in charge of the city. Like we have all heard how Rudy saved New York City from crime. In movies mayors have administrative power; but in Sacramento our mayor only has a small amount of legislative power. Lauren says we hired Kevin to be mayor not boss; but in fact most people assumed when they are voting for mayor they were voting for the chief administrator or boss of the city.
My compliments, Joe. This is tremendous work…an early nominee for Sacramento blog post of the year! (and just a side note, while I do my best to teach logical fallacies in my high school classes, I think I’m going to print this out and keep it in my notes for a reminder and inspiration.)
Some very smart readers and commenters too. Fat Gold Chain is so right: The deliberate obfuscation associated with all of this indeed “reeks like stanky shoes.” I’ve had two people today tell me they were approached by signature gatherers who asked them to sign the petition order to create an Independent Budget Analyst for the city—not a word about a strong mayor/charter revision in their spiel. Orwell would be wryly amused.
No need to add more at this point. D-6 Resident, with your last post, you read my mind!
Exactly, Ed.
If you want a modern city, it takes a modern mayoral system. THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. They haven’t done squat in several years. What makes anyone think they’ll change now? They lied about the Natomas police substation despite the city coffers being overrun with cash. How can you build consensus with people who don’t care about something as basic as public safety? You can’t. You have to go over their heads and override them. What assurances do we have that Johnson will come through? None. Which is why you can vote his ass out in four years. But the current system needs to be demolished.
Here is the thing that I have a problem the most with about the proposal being foisted upon us by the Mayor. The plan being put before the voters is already set in stone. Now that the ballot language is in place, it cannot be changed. This was not the public process we were promised by Kevin Johnson during his last campaign. So, he hasn’t even been in office a month, and already he has broken his word to us. That is not someone I am comfortable giving more power to.
There are some serious flaws with this plan. There are term limits for the council members, but not for the Mayor. How does that make sense? And since the plan is already set in stone, if the public is unhappy with the way it works out, the only way we can change it is through another vote.
I’m voting no on this turd and will wait till a better plan, with more public input is ready to be put before the voters.
Joe-
Not a fabulous article but I’m short on time so check this out- http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=2627 The “weak mayor” problem is not a new debate and has been going on for years. This article was written in 2000 and points out that Serna was only successful because of his charisma, that the weak mayor system otherwise binds those with less charisma and influence to be just another member of the council.
This isn’t a new conversation and while I believe KJ is certainly pushing the effort, there is also a strong grassroots movement behind the idea that a mayor should be a mayor, not a member of the Council. Fargo left everyone feeling paralyzed and now there’s a sense that change can happen- whether or not this is the change we need is still up for debate.
As for language, there’s not a ton of wiggle room for ballot language that determines something like this. Unless we were going to redesign the entire city charter and a completely new mayor system, you really have one or the other.
IF this is true, then IMO the city council members who don’t care about crime should be removed because they are a liability to the city. In that case, no matter how you reform the city government you still haven’t pulled the weeds by their roots because you still have people who are out of alignment with the needs of their constituents.
Forget grass roots. Let’s look at root causes.
Sac Blog: Again I am not against the idea. I think it’s too soon. I think they should be shooting for a November ballot initiative after he has been in office one year and proven himself.
Good job Joe! Keep up the good work.
This is were I stand. I come from a strong mayor system in Los Angeles. I worked under the strong mayor system, for the Mayor of Los Angeles.
I am opposed!
For big cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, it works. Why? Los Angeles’s population is 3.5 million people. San Francisco’s population is 900, 000. For big cities as these, the Mayor needs to be around a lot of places and thats where the strong mayor system comes. With the strong mayor system, City Council elects a Council President which conducts City Council meetings. The Mayor is not required to be present.
Sacramento has the population of 462,000 people. The strong Mayor system does not work for this city. This is not a big city. It does not come close to the numbers of LA or San Fran. Plus where would Kevin Johnson go? His agenda is not even public yet. While campaigning, didn’t he mention that he wants to hear the citizens concerns? Remeber, city council meetings is your opportunity to talk to your city government. Also, he said, he wants to work with the City Coucilmembers on issues concerning the city?
Kevin Johnson wil not be required to attend City Council meetings, if this strong mayor system passes. So, while he was campaigning, was he lying to us? does he not give a damn of what the citizens have to say? or council memebers? KJ should focus on public safety as he promised and getting the budget balanced.
The weak mayor system works for now. Until we reach the numbers of San Francisco and LA, doen’t change anything yet.
It’s well established that they won’t be removed from office, Joe. Treethaway and his ilk are the masters of teflon. You know this more than anyone……… Plus the residents here are so apathetic and complacent. City council elections have very low voter turnouts. I have little faith in the public and no faith in the council. Which is why I’m all for the council having it’s power significantly reduced.
The population comparisons to LA or SF don’t work, David. Those are two of the largest metropolitan areas in the US. We can’t compete with them in that sense. This is still the capital of California though. Our population exceeds that of most towns in the state and even some state capitals around the country. We are a city. We need to modernize and have a strong mayoral system.
Joe-
I’m not opposed to the idea either but I prefer to look at it unrelated to KJ. yes he’s pushing the idea now but it’s not “his” idea. I disagree with David- I think Sacramento is trying to be a big city and therefore, needs big city management. We can’t continue to mismash piecemeal stuff together like some small town part-time mayor/sheriff setup. It’s not working and it’s harming the city as it happens. Plus, I like to have ONE person accountable so that I can have their head on a silver platter when it doesn’t work. Right now everyone points fingers, blames everyone else and does a little dance around the “well the city council blah blah”. Sons of liberty is right when he says that we could benefit from having the council’s power reduced. They have no accountability because they’re not tangible as individuals while hiding behind the “council” framework. If I had a dime for every time I’d seen one of them say something about building consensus, “the council decided” or “we have to work together” I’d be a rich rich woman. It’s time for some heads to roll and that only happens in a system that either has a boss or has a population that cares.
Reports I’m hearing from people who attended the kickoff last night was that it didn’t go well. The room was about 1/8 full. The organizers were expecting many more. I’m sure they must not be feeling very good about their chances now.
I ran into three signature gatherers in front of my supermarket today. There were big crowds at the store, but these guys were mostly ignored. When they approached me, I asked them what the petition was for and they said it was to increase the authority of the city’s budget director. Nothing about the strong Mayor. The must be feeling that Kevin Johnson isn’t as popular as he thinks he is.
D-6-
I never trust whatever the paid signature gatherers say. Half the time, they haven’t read it themselves- or they’ve read the first line. If they’re in front of the store, they’re paid usually by the signature and they’ll say ANYTHING to get you to sign.
I believe the email I received said 300 people attended last night, though I’ve trashed it so I can’t verify. That’s a decent amount for a quickly put together event in Sacramento!
They are saying the petition is to “increase the authority of the city’s budget director”?? That seems deceptive… ?
Why aren’t they telling people the petition is to make Johnson CEO of Sacramento? By the way, who will craft the ballot language? What assurances are there that the verbiage will be informative and clear to voters????
Hey did anyone see what Johnson said in the Bee today? He says that he isn’t trying to be popular and that people voted for change so he is making changes. Ok no. We voted for change, but not to make him CEO whenever he feels like flipping the switch. I bet anything he thinks all the backlash is ‘because change is painful for people so this is just natural for them to resist it’ like he is some kind of enlightened guru and we are all a bunch of aimless sheep that are starving for his gestapo leadership.
I voted for you mayor J and I even worked some on your campaign but I am not feeling the way you have gone about this –and I hope you know that if this thing doesn’t pass you will have lost one hell of a lot of credibility. Huge “go for broke” risk you have taken here and shows very little interest in bridge building. Really you are acting more like a demolitionist than a bridge builder. Did you even get one council person’s support for this?
Oh and great work here Joe
GG
I saw a news report describing how the council is upset and how Johnson needs to slow down. Yeah sure. I’d be upset if someone was threatening my power too. If it was up to the bozos at city hall they’d talk it to death like they do everything else. No action, just commissions, reports, more commissions, and more reports. Seeing as how half the districts the council represents are dumps, and the other half are on their way to becoming dumps, maybe being a little more hands on, swift, and forceful would be apropos.
What I want to know is, what does Johnson plan to do with all this extra power if he gets it??? He’s never said, as far as I know. He’s not being TRANSPARENT. He wasn’t transparent in his campaign either, because he never indicated that he wanted to make this “strong mayor” change. Now that he’s elected, it’s his top priority. Has he done ANYTHING at this point to address any of the major, IMPORTANT issues of our city????????
Joe- petitioners and those trying to get things on the ballot can say anything they want- it’s up to you to read what’s actually on the paper you’re signing. I remember being approached by someone when they were trying to get Prop 8 on the ballot. They told me specifically that it was a measure to make sure gays could have civil unions. Uh… not really. I guess in some warped way it protected civil unions by denying marriage. But that was certainly not the intent of the proposition.
GG- ballot language has to follow certain procedure. I believe in Sac it’s approved by the County Clerk but I’m not positive. http://www.elections.saccounty.net/coswcms/groups/public/@wcm/@pub/@vre/@inter/documents/webcontent/sac_004960.pdf
Has anybody seen the two thugs in front of Raleys yelling at customers as they walk in to sign the petition, the store should ban them, along with all the Obama junk there trying to sell unload.
LawlessJane, the strong mayoral system will give the mayor substantially more control over the budget, veto power over the council, and more authority to make city appointments.
As far as what he’s done since taking office? Well he partially funded the downtown tree lighting with his own cash. He’s encouraged residents to shop and support more local businesses. Now he’s trying to get the strong mayoral thing on the June ballot. He seems pretty proactive to me. At least a lot more proactive than Fargo. Remember he just took office in November and he hasn’t been able to do much over the Holiday season. So while I hope he keeps his promises about public safety I wouldn’t judge him too prematurely based a very short time in office. It’ll be a year before we know what kind of mayor he’ll be.
Joe…”Fargo” did get things done…but you see it was the (Fargo Machine” (Richie Ross et al) that got things done…Fargo and her cronies controlled the city council..therefore she accomplished what her cronies wanted her to get done…
If you know the politics of Sacramento…this town, prior and post Serna, the council has not controlled the city council…like all politicians…our elected bozo’s were nothing but mouth pieces for powerful developers and special interest groups….it’s not a new story…money and power controls elected officials and always has.
Take Ray and Fargo for example…they both got into office on the back of an environmental lawsuit against the city…they wanted to stop development in Natomas…but walla…they dropped the suit…got money from the Sacramento Tree Foundation..who’s Board is made up almost entirely of the same developers they sued…next thing you know both Ray and Fargo fast tracked the urban sprawl that is now Natomas..clearly…the appearance is that they were bought off…otherwise why did they suddenly change their environmental stance…and once in office..those same developers funneled money and campaign contributions to them…and Ray and Fargo voted in lockstep for every development proposal.
Now that we got rid of Fargo..we need to get rid of the cronies she placed into high paying city jobs…as well as the leftover Fargonian council members…you see Joe..these Fargonians will never forgive KJ and will always be a thorn in his side..along with the other sitting Fargonian council members.
I am not happy how this charter amendment came about..but it needed to be proposed at some point..clearly our city needs change…but you also need to take a look at the timing…KJ could not wait a year…a special election would have needed to be called just for the charter amendment, and nothing else…or he would have had to wait until 2010…right now there will be a statewide election in June…they felt strategically they did not want to wait until 2010 (which will be a HUGE race in Sac due to council seats and the 9th AD election) So they chose to do this this year…it took me awhile to understand why they set it for this June…they however made huge mistakes on how they announced the proposal…they should have had discussions with other council members…and community members…but they didn’t..now what? torpedo the change we need because they ruffled a few feathers?
Right now they are struggling to get the required signatures…they have until the 16th…if this fails…and/or this measure gets voted down…our newly elected champion of the city could become a lame duck mayor…that’s not what we need, and that’s not why we voted KJ into office..we wanted change…and now he is offering it to us.
So we can either get behind an imperfect proposal which will bring real change…or we can risk it all by not supporting KJ and watching him get hammered by emboldened Fargonians on the council which still outnumber his votes on the council…MaCarty, Pannel, Hammond?, Fong, Tretheway… Hammond is the swing vote right now..and she is most likely running for the D9 Assembly seat (along with Fong, McCarty, Fargo and Dickenson) Hopefully we can get Hammond in line, but that’s a huge maybe,,, ( I know back room deals are being made on that front as we speak)
So you have to look at the big political picture here of this measure…sure it may be a bit premature…but looking at the political landscape they decided this was the best time…and since i strongly supported KJ for Mayor, I for one am willing to take any risk by backing this measure…I trust Kevin…I truly believe he loves this city with all his heart..and I love his vision for the future of Sacramento that he laid out during his campaign…so I say lets give him a break..and lets give him a chance…
We can always vote him out of office..just as easily as we can get the charter amendment revoked if it becomes a problem.
I love bold people who take bold chances…otherwise nothing gets done.
btw..Jerry Brown did this in Oakland..and he did great things for Oakland while Mayor (take a trip to downtown Oakland and see for yourself)..and so did Willie Brown in SF…whatever your thoughts on Willie…(he can be quite a snake) as a strong Mayor he built the ball park, and built up SOMA..spending billions and providing jobs and making SF an even greater city.
The Gadfly
Written by D-6 Resident
I disagree on this point. Obviously, there is no better qualification for a mayor than experience being mayor. Admittedly, a lot of you have a good point that Kevin Johnson has never been mayor before but establishing term limits means that you are almost always electing a mayor that does not have mayoral experience. I think it makes sense to have term limits for the council because voting on laws and passing budgets doesn’t require experience like being an administrator does, but don’t create term limits for jobs that require a lot of experience.
As expected, the city is in a tumult again. From the dawn of the ages, it has never ceased to be the case. The inevitable occurs when masses of people, oftentimes in a state of discontentment whether it is with themselves, their government or a sole individual feel the need to let their voices be heard LOUDLY. Amidst all the noise, you can usually spot a troublemaker or two who thrive on this type of atmosphere. If only we could lock them out of the city for good, but they are an evasive bunch. Don’t worry too much though, they have been forewarned.
Somewhere in the brew, you can also spot the scribe busy taking notes of the chaos for the records and some history lessons. Then there are the ’sad sacks’ pardon the pun; I meant ’sad sacs’ (now there is a term that comes to mind as one beholds the drama and listens to the discourse, one does feel some sadness) So who or what is a sad sack anyway? And what relationship do they have with sad sacs (Sacramentans)? I’m feeling led to quickly pause this message and search the web.
I have good news and bad news! Typically, one would start with the bad news, but change is good, so the good news is ‘Sad Sack’ was a fictional comic character. The bad news is his depiction.
From Wikipedia:
The Sad Sack is an American fictional comic strip and comic book character created by Sgt. George Baker during World War II. Set in the United States Army, Sad Sack depicted an otherwise unnamed, lowly private experiencing some of the absurdities and humiliations of military life.
The term has come to signify [citation needed] a meek, inept, unmilitary serviceman who means well but blunders his way, consistently in trouble, resignedly finding the odds always against him in military life. More broadly, it is applied to a hopelessly clumsy, incompetent or inept person, or a ludicrous misfit, also called an “eight ball”.
From Answers.com
“A singularly inept person, as in Poor George is a hopeless sad sack. This term alludes to a cartoon character, Sad Sack, invented by George Baker in 1942 and representing a soldier in ill-fitting uniform who failed at whatever he tried to do. It was soon transferred to clumsily inept civilians.”
And at your convenience, you may read more about ‘Sad Sack’ via these links:
http://www.sadsack.net/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXU/is_/ai_n21106264
Similar adjectives have been hurled at the man at the center of the tumult; his is a life in the public’s eye and has been for a very long time and now the political arena. If he has been called all these things prior to the election, then how come…?
Unless we’re dealing here with some very clumsily inept, star-struck civilians. I hope that is not the case.
Greetings. Sorry I haven’t visited for awhile.
To correct a few things on here …
The first meeting of “Sacramentans for Accountable Government” attracted nearly 300 people. Nearly every seat was filled, and there were a couple of dozen folks standing. There were Obama folks, Republicans, Fargo supporters, and Johnson supporters.
This style of Mayor/Council government isn’t about Kevin Johnson; it’s about accountability. It will apply to future mayors and future councils. That’s why nearly every city Sacramento’s size has it, and the trend across the nation is toward this system and away from the style that has an unelected city employee managing the city.
What’s also missing here is the power that the city council gains — including providing important checks and balances vs. the Mayor. It’s no different than the system that we have in federal and state government. It works. The loser in power here is the city manager, who can focus on administering city government instead of trying to report to nine different bosses, many of whom change every two years.
Need an example of how powerless the Mayor and Council are? It was the City Manager — not elected officials — that eliminated eight positions in the Development Services department on Monday; elected officials simply got notice of it.
The complaints about doing this in the middle of the night and behind the backs of the Council are absurd. At the MINIMUM, there will be six months of debate on the proposal. If the Governor and Legislature don’t call a June special election, it will be on the November ballot — nearly a full year from when it was first proposed. Seems like plenty of time to discuss, research, and evaluate, doesn’t it?
Hi Steve and thanks for dropping in. Hope your holidays were nice.
Your points certainly have merit. And I agree 100% there will be time to discuss and debate, and yes it might just be enough. These are good things.
Personally I am hoping it goes to November ballot as I want to see what kind of leader KJ is going to be. I want to see him work WITH council members, resolve conflict, demonstrate solid executive leadership skills, etc. I have seen NONE of those things from him yet. Just a lot of talk.. and a referendum.
You have to admit the way this was rolled out has not helped its cause. Sure, “fortune favors the bold,” and this was bold, but where is the sensitivity to the establishment? Feels like pure bull in china store to me.
Good to see you Steve. Drop in any time! Your commentary is valuable to the discussion!
I’ve heard from several sources that the SAG kickoff meeting was underattended. Apparently there is ANOTHER kickoff meeting today, maybe you’ll be able to get a few people to attend that.
The city can have all the debate it wants about this plan, but voters will only be able to vote yes or no on it. The plan is already drafted and certified by the city attorney and cannot be changed. So the debate will only be if we like it or not. A more transparent process would have crafted this charter amendment through public workshops to see what would really work best for our city. Now it’s just Kevin Johnson and his consultants’ way and that’s it. For such an imprtant reworking of our form of government, I don’t think this is the way to go. And from nearly every person I’ve talked to, they have the exact same feeling.
Let this proposal die and let the city work on a better plan.
D-6 you are correct in a sense…the attendance was no where near the 300 claimed by Maviglio and the SAG campaign…i would say 165-185 (yes i counted) prior to the beginning of the meeting SAG staff pulled a hundred or so chairs, assumingly so they could say they had “standing room only” as Maviglio did, as did a mass email that came out the next morning.
The speakers were incredibly boring and had no personality with the exception of KJ who blazed in for a 17 minute pep rally.
The leaders of SAG are clearly out of their element and do not understand politics in Sac.
All of this being said, I support KJ and I will vote for the measure if it gains enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. I am however not happy at the quality of advisers that KJ has surrounded himself with, with the exception of a couple.
I wish KJ would have hired Joe as a consultant, he would have much better counsel than he currently has.
So here is my advice to you KJ and Maviglio since I know you read Joe Sacramento. Listen to the voices on this site; they represent the people who elected you and Joe has his finger on the pulse of Sacramento like no adviser you could ever hire.
While it appears you may have bought the farm with this charter measure, the campaign so far is stumbling and the campaign management team does not cut the mustard, rapid changes must be made or this measure will fail.
Sad Sag: wow, thank you. Great post about his advisers. Although… I am not sure if a general like KJ is interested in being “advised.” You and I both know leaders who are truly passionate about building bridges hire people from both sides of the table. Look at the way Obama has filled his cabinet. He himself said Lincoln is his favorite president because Lincoln assembled a staff of both friends and foes. THAT is how you gain mass popularity and get people behind your ideas. That is also how you become a legend.
How is KJ going to say he didn’t run to be popular then turn around and hope people come out in force to vote for his ideas? He BETTER want to be popular. Define conflict. KJ seems conflicted. He does need advisers, and he needs advisers who would be brutally honest with him, and he would need to make a commitment to listen to them and trust them… and act on their advice… and I am not sure he has that in him. I hope he proves me wrong.
The Emperor has no clothes? I give KJ the benefit of the doubt, he is clearly intelligent and motivated; the problem I see stems from lack of experience in the political world. He will eventually get up to speed and will be a political powerhouse. Right now he seemingly has no other choice but to lean heavily on his advisers.
I want to start a “Draft Joe” campaign, KJ needs your help Joe.
I really like his pick for Chief of Staff Kunal Merchant. Very sharp guy that comes across as very sincere, and from what i can see NOT his political adviser. Chris Young on the other hand comes of extremely arrogant with little or no social skills, and from all appearances IS a very close political adviser. (It appears the his arrogance may be affecting his counsel to Kevin)
Side Note to Chris Young: dude seriously, work on your social skill with the public, your arrogance is harming Kevin’s administration.
Of course these are just observations from the peanut gallery.
No offense, but citing Lincoln’s cabinet choices as something to aspire to is a mistake. Once Lincoln was dead his douchebag VP, Andrew Johnson took over. Although he was loyal to the Union he was a confederate sympathizer. He undermined everything Lincoln stood for, and was the confederacy’s most powerful friend north of the Mason Dixon line. He pardoned just about every criminal confederate he could think of. The same traitors that led battles against the United States were now serving in the Senate. The most critical years of reconstruction were sabotaged by this pig. It was so appalling that the radical Republicans impeached president Andrew Johnson. Although he wasn’t removed from office he stopped shilling for the confederacy, but the damage was done.
Obama, correctly, did not select any rival as a VP. And even the rival he did select for SoS has an almost identical worldview as he does. Looks like Obama learned his lessons from history.
Sons: Excellent history lesson, but I am not sure how your point about Andrew Johnson refutes mine–which was intended to be strictly about Lincoln’s overall ATTITUDE and approach to leadership.
In addition, no offense, but your point seems fallacious the way I am reading it. Look at the logic your argument implies:
1. President Lincoln appointed Andrew Johnson as VP, and Lincoln was one of the best presidents in history.
2. After Lincoln died Andrew Johnson became president and undermined Lincoln
3. Therefore it is a mistake to say Lincoln’s approach to assembling a great staff is a model for all to follow.
Compare to:
1. John hired Joe to be chef of his new restaurant and it was one of the best restaurants in history
2. John died, Joe became owner of the restaurant, totally changed the menu, and the food became so bad people stopped coming and the restaurant closed.
3. Therefore it’s a mistake to say John’s approach to assembling a great staff is a model for all to follow.
Technically, and someone please correct me if I’m wrong, I believe this type of reasoning is called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)
I believe my point remains: Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents ever, and much of his success can be attributed to the diverse pool of people he assembled to help him achieve his goals.
Your overall point is fine. My point was that the friend and foe approach doesn’t always work. Sometimes it can be detrimental. Especially when said foe is thrust into a position of significant power.
In fact, when a new government comes into office, or new management takes over a company, it’s recommended that they get rid of entrenched malcontents and clean house. The last thing they’d want are rivals who have questionable loyalties working with them or for them.