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.

Anyone have any ideas on how to address this without me having to play gestapo? I’m all ears

Thanks!

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

Cog: 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.

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.