All, I am posting this article from a reader who frequents this site. He emailed me and said he couldn’t get the article to post for some reason, so I thought I would just make it an article. This is from a gentleman named Ed Diggs. You can read about him here. Thanks, Ed. I’m sure you will get some spirited comments from this 
The central purpose of the strong mayor proposal: accountability
By Ed Diggs
Here is my evidence:
According to mydd.com, “In 2002, 72% of the electorate believed that Democrats controlled the House of Representatives.” The link is http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/7/19510/54245 But as some of you may know Republicans actually controlled the House of Representatives that year. How could so many poll respondents be so wrong? The answer obviously is that people don’t typically understand politics.
Even if voters understood that in Sacramento each city council member has a nearly equal amount of power as the mayor this would lead the electorate to being puzzled by a complicated situation. Our current system of a powerful council forces voters to figure out which of the council members are serving well and which are not. I think this is a lot harder for a person to decide than it sounds.
Here is an illustration of this issue. A woman lives in a poor section of town and notices that her neighborhood has increased killings and robberies under a mayor. If the strong mayor proposal has passed she will know who to hold accountable for this because the mayor will be in charge of deciding where to focus the efforts of the police. Under the current system her city councilman may have been trying to fight for her but the city manager might not have seen the councilman as a needed ally. Instead a city manager may have had an incentive to distribute police to council members who support him. The woman will have no way of knowing if her city councilman is fighting for her or neglecting her.
Therefore a benefit that the strong mayor system would bring is the voters would be able to replace the mayor when he seems to be mismanaging the city. Naturally if mayors control the direction of the city and can be held responsible every four years then this provides the mayor with a powerful incentive to manage the city well. I would expect the strong mayor system to lead to greater city efficiency and responsiveness because of the added accountability.
I suppose I should explain why I think accountability is lacking in our current system. In our system a city manager runs Sacramento. The city manager needs the support of at least a majority of the city council to keep his position. Also in Sacramento we have eight districts where council members are elected from. And we have one mayor who serves as a council member but represents the entire city. Hypothetically the city manager will seek to keep his job by satisfying at least five people on the council. If he needs to redirect police forces to certain council districts in order to keep the support of at least five members then he will. Of course this would lead to the other districts being without sufficient police protection. But as I said a city manager is really only accountable to a majority of the city’s districts not to the entire city.
A strong mayor proposal would lead to the city manager not “needing to count to five” supporters on the city council but instead simply serving the mayor.
I think having five bosses would drive anyone crazy. In most cities a city manager only lasts a few years. This is probably because it is impossible to satisfy so many people at one time. If I was a city manager I would only be able to relax if I had a single boss. A good system of governance should never involve multiple bosses who are directly in charge of one person. And is it really wise to have a system that leads to the city manager being stressed? Would this not dramatically affect how he does his job?
Joe, glad to see you delving into local politics again (now under the psuedonym “Ed Diggs”)
I agree that there is a problem. Strong mayor may or may not be the solution. Even if strong mayor is the solution its not clear that the current strong mayor proposal is the right one. But I am glad to see that the topic is at least under discussion. Hopefully the feelings towards Kevin Johnson doesn’t forever taint this important subject.
One aspect you failed to touch on “Ed Diggs” is that the current system has mostly failed to draw in talent befitting a city of our size. The reason Kevin Johnson easily won the election is that he was running against a mid-level manager from the parks and recreation department… Mayor Fargo is a fine lady who actually accomplished a lot during her tenure, but I think we can agree that the current system is not enticing the best and the brightest to get involved.
Cogmeyer, that is really presumptuous of you.
I’m very surprised you would think this was me after how strongly I have opposed Johnson’s strong mayor proposal.
For the record: I am not Ed Diggs. Email Edhere if you want to speak to him directly. Ed feel free to jump in here any time after you get back from your trip. 
PS: I will be posting an article I wrote on the strong mayor shortly.
It is a very minor issue that I am addressing. Therefore read on at the risk of being bored.
cogmeyer wrote:
I will take some liberty with your words. I think you are saying that the added power provided by the strong mayor proposal will attract better candidates for mayor of Sacramento. And you seem to assume in your argument that voters will automatically choose the best candidate or at least from the best candidates.
In order to examine these two ideas we could examine state governments. We could compare the power of constitutional offices to two factors. The factors would be the quality of candidates for an office and the quality of the successful candidate. The main reason I think this is a worthwhile comparison is because constitutional statewide officeholders have starkly contrasting levels of power just like the proposed mayor system has greatly increased power compared to the current mayor system. The other reason is because statewide boundaries are consistent to each other just as the mayor’s electorate would be the same in either system.
This would take you a long time but I suspect you would find that governors have more charisma even while the less powerful constitutional officers have an equal capacity to govern. I really don’t know what you would find though. Therefore to respond to your line:
I would say that increasing the power of an office is not likely to either improve or decrease the calibre of the governing capacity of candidates or officeholders to that office.
Another way to analyze the issue is to ask: Are Sacramento’s most electable politicians relatively better at governing or are Sacramento’s next class down (politicians who are just one step less electable) relatively better at governing? I personally don’t think the answer is obvious and I suspect that this answer is dependent on the culture of our city. In other words I think cultures are different enough that any city you wanted to answer this question for would require an individual investigation.
^ Sincerely, Ed
Ed
First, thanks for coming down from Pompous Mountain to weigh in on my “minor issue”. I know your time is valuable.
And its not an “issue”, its a point. And the point is the same whether its politics, business, or sports. The most ambitous, intelligent, & driven individuals do not take on challenges without some expectation that they will have enough power to influence a positive outcome.
You can take a quick look at the recent crop of Raiders head coaches as evidence of this.
Similarly, Sacramento mayors have been a sequence of mid-level muckety mucks for years (at least until we were all dazzled by KJ’s glitter). I would love to see proven leaders jockeying for the job in each election.
I can’t say whether the voters will choose the glitter, the muckety-muck or a proven leader, but lets at least make a job that the best and the brightest might consider getting involved.
I confess I have never seen a “pompous mountain” before. Hey, the more I think about it, aren’t all mountains pompous by nature? Don’t they all seem to have that “oh-little-man-you-are-so-inferior-to-me” complex?
Why me? I came in the door, and got some glitter in my eyes. I can’t really see to post much. Let me go wash this stuff out? See you later, ok.
cogmeyer wrote:
It made me laugh to read this. Not because I think little of you. It is just funny. It is about as close to clear sarcasm as I have every seen written.
I don’t consider you unimportant. I just thought the issue was unimportant. “Your point”, Cogmeyer, may turn out to be true. Your point is that better mayors will be elected in the future if only the mayor will have “enough power to influence a positive outcome.” I do find it persuasive.
If you are right then clearly it is an important point. And I don’t know much of all the past mayors of Sacramento. If I had some of your knowledge, if I only knew that they tend to me mediocre, then I might agree with you that we need to increase the power of the position in order to “entice the best and the brightest.” However, I just have never met or learned much about the mayors before Heather Fargo. So perhaps i came from a pompous valley and not from any mountain.
I am not trying to agree with you I am just granting you that you have a persuasive point.
Oh great. First you dismiss my “minor issues”. Now I am some kind of JoeSac court jester.
I don’t know what a “JoeSac court jester” is. Would you like to tell me?
Ok fellas…let’s keep it civil. I’m also a peacemaker. I’m confident you guys can handle yourselves. Don’t disappoint.
Court jesters get such a bad rap.