I gotta give it to Mayor Kevin Johnson: When he puts his mind to something, he barrels down the track like a runaway locomotive, plowing through everything and everyone in his way. That would explain his rise to the top of the professional sports ladder, as well as his success last night in getting five council members to vote in favor of putting his “strong arm mayor” proposal in front of voters next year.
Personally, I don’t have any issues with this latest development. When the idea was first hatched I suggested a minimum of one year to prove himself, so I am more than satisfied with two years. Good vote on the council’s part. I just wonder what his strategy is for the next year. Will he lay low and avoid controversy, or will he be aggressive and forge ahead with his vision for Sacramento to the best of his ability (in his current capacity), critics be damned?
Either way, I think he’s got himself into a bit of a quagmire which will manifest when election time rolls around. Why? Because he’s going to have to sell voters on the idea of strong mayor, and his pitch is going to be rife with conflict. While the the first part of his pitch (i.e. why the city needs a strong mayor seat like other cities have), will be hotly debated, it’s actually the second part (i.e. why he is the right guy for the job), he might be concerned about.
Think about it; he can’t really take credit for any positive change that has occurred since he was sworn in–without undermining his own reasons for wanting to be CEO of Sac in the first place. Remember why he wants to be strong-arm mayor? Because he can’t get anything done as weak mayor. Too much bureaucracy, says Mayor KJ. Hmm.
So if he truly wants voters to believe he can’t get anything done in his current capacity, it only stands to reason he will probably want to avoid claims such as: “Under my leadership Sacramento added X amount of cops and X federal stimulus dollars…” or “Under my leadership Sacramento bought IOU’s…” because all of them will be met with the same reply from apprehensive voters: “Hey wait a minute, I thought you didn’t have any power as weak mayor? If you were able to do all these great things as weak mayor, why do we need to make you strong mayor?”
It will be interesting to see how he justifies the strong mayor position, and at the same time touts all of his accomplishments as weak mayor. It’s the same dilemma law enforcement agencies face. That is, it’s incredibly difficult to get support for more taxpayer dollars when at the same time they’re bragging about, e.g., the biggest drug bust in the history of the state. Reminds me of a recent comment on Sacbee.com by a reader responding to a story on how law enforcement agencies worked brilliantly together to break up a major meth ring. The reader wrote, “And to think the cops had this major success without a single stimulus buck!”
Can Johnson get his strong-arm mayor proposal passed? Only if he can prove it is necessary… and that’s going to be very tricky as long as he shows up for work every day and does his best at his job, regardless of his title, between now and election time.
I agree with all that was written here. Johnson definitely can not brag about what he has accomplished as weak mayor and at the same time say Sacramento needs a strong mayor. Great observation Joe. But I’ll bet you anything he will still tout his accomplishments because man he just can’t help himself
“Strong-arm” love the subtle humor. Fitting
A long line of mayors working in the current “weak” mayor arrangement have had no problem touting their accomplishments. Have no fear, KJ will do the same.
I am a bit puzzled by KJ’s and city councils strategy around the strong mayor proposal. KJ obviously misread the sentiment of the city council and the public with his too early strong mayor proposal.
But by the same token, the rest city council could have easily undercut KJ by making their own strong mayor proposal, effective at the end of KJ’s first term in 2012… KJ would then have to choose either to get on board (and thus make his re-election a referundum on the strong mayor proposal) or fight to promote his own strong mayor plan.
Ironically, the lack of leadership on this by the rest of the city council is a perfect example why I think a strong mayor arrangement is good for Sacramento, at least in the long term.
So true. There’s no denying the city council members are hacks. Goes to show people just don’t think local leaders have much impact on their lives, else they would vote much more thoughtfully. I’m hoping some better leaders emerge in this next election.
(Repeating this comment from another post, since it is more fitting here…)
I spoke with Ray after the vote last night. He said it’s all about Fong wanting to have the strong mayor initiative(s) on the ballot in 2012, which is when he’ll be running for mayor.
I spoke to Council in favor of having the initiative on the ballot in 2010.
At this point, I think our city needs a strong mayor system of government. Whether this particular strong mayor initiative is the solution our city needs is debatable, and honestly, it has many flaws and I think it will have a tough time surviving the scrutiny it will receive in the coming months.
I personlly did not sign the petition when it was circulating. I read every word of the proposed amendment (much to the chagrin of the signature gatherer) and I decided to think on it. (In contrast, I signed the petition for the independent auditor without hesitation.)
There was a lot of pressure on Ray Tretheway to support having this on the consolidated primary ballot in June 2010. Cohn made the motion and Tretheway seconded it.
There was pretty compelling testimony supporting having it on the November 2012 ballot… But that would require two separate redistrictings — one in 2011 and another in 2013, rather than just one in 2011. Each redistricting costs about a quarter million dollars.
Not all those supporting a 2010 vote were supportive of the measure itself. Some were indifferent and a few were actually against it. The most vocal opponents of the measure were union members and leaders, notably SEIU.
In the end, I believe it all comes down to respecting democracy and the right of the people to vote in a timely manner. It’s a lot like free speech in my mind: I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it…? Well, I may not think the initiative is the right recipe for this city, but I defend the city’s right to vote on it at the earliest practical (i.e., fiscally responsible, non-”Special Election”) opportunity.
Keith Sharward
Co-founder and Board Member, Witter Ranch Community Alliance – http://www.WitterRanchCommunity.org
Member, Natomas Crime & Safety Leadership Team
Supporter, Angelique Ashby for City Council 2010 – http://www.AngeliqueAshby.com
Are you on Angelique’s mailing list yet? http://www.AngeliqueAshby.com/mailinglist
Joe are you really going to allow Sharward to spam your site? He can give his opinion..but the spam and links are BS.
CD: On one hand I do agree with you; Keith’s signature feels kinda spammy to me, too. On the other hand, I do not want to get into the censorship business.
Anyone have any ideas on how to address this without me having to play gestapo? I’m all ears
Thanks!
Ban Sharwards IP?
I really don’t mind the long signature. It at least informs you about what kind of person wrote the comment.
As for the proposal, I have read much of the city clerk’s and city attorney’s analysis and I think the strong mayor proposal creates the appropriate balance between the mayor and the city council. In fact I found that the proposal is superior to an system of governance that it was compared to in the analysis.