So I hear the panel commissioned to explore charter reform for the mayor’s seat has determined it’s a good idea to give the mayor a few more goats, but not the deed to the farm. That will apparently be the topic of a two hour agenda item in tonight’s session. Sounds reasonable to me.
After the commission reports to the council, I challenge Mayor Johnson to rescind his strong mayor proposal, and accept the commission’s recommendations 100%. If ever there was an extraordinary opportunity for the Mayor to get humble and establish himself as a servant leader, TONIGHT is it! It would take extreme humility, but he could pull it off with a bit of courage and strong faith.
Would it take a miracle for Kevin Johnson to put aside his personal agenda, lower himself to the bottom of the leaderboard, and put the majority’s needs before his own? Of course. But I believe in such overtime miracles. Time and again in the past two years I have seen miracle after miracle. Not on ESPN, but in my own life.
I have witnessed firsthand the restoration and renewal of lost souls, many of whom had been wandering through the wilderness of life for decades, completely lost and without purpose. I have seen a blind man’s sight restored. I have seen a deaf man’s hearing restored. I have seen a gravely ill man’s health restored. I have seen a dead man’s life restored.
I understand most people must SEE to BELIEVE. But through faith anything is possible. Anything.
Joesacramento – lets see a positive story sometime !!
If this proposal is voted for, the city will further decline, KJ is an embarassment to most thoughtful residents. I am hopeful some of the other council members can be tough and not just roll over, it is absurd to give this rookie more power, let’s wait until at least 2012 and then we can judge how successful KJ has been and then he can be rewarded with more power.
Yes Charlie I agree with you wholeheartedly
I absolutely agree with Charlie. I love the article and I agree with you both wholeheartedly.
Charlie wrote:
For me the issue is not about whether or not I approve the mayor but whether or not I approve of elected officials holding executive power in the decades to come. For me this is about a long term change not a short term change.
Also an executive’s ability to govern is different than a council member’s ability to legislate or lobby the city manager. I don’t think the performance of one task has much correlation to the other. For example I might be good at shoveling dirt but I cannot fix your car.
Mr Diggs, you wrote, “…..but whether or not I approve of elected officials holding executive power in the decades to come. For me this is about a long term change not a short term change.”. Can you please or Mark can you please tell me, If this proposal doesn’t go on the ballot 2010 when is the next time voters can have a SMP on the ballot? When can a comprehensive proposal- one which gives the community time to weigh the pros and cons without a proposal being written in stone and we can have it tweaked to remove concerns be placed on the ballot if this ship sails… ? Mr Diggs, suggests “decades to come” will it be 20yrs or more before another SMP can be put on the ballot? Heck with the way sac city government seems to be going I don’t know if I’d be happy with the proposal if it went– as it is written— 4 yrs from now to another mayor- It’s not about Johnson to me either— it’s about knowing —being shown— the mayor with the power knows what to do with it and is not corrupt. Heck as far as we know Mayor Johnson could be the lesser of two evils and another mayor comes in by manipulating the public who is more concerning than Johnson and has all the power from this SMP. My opposing it isn’t personal- due to concerns for Johnson– it is business– due to concerns of all the power……
I really don’t have any special insight about when another strong mayor proposal would be offered if the current proposal is defeated. I tend to think that the more strongly voters reject the proposal the less willing people will be to reform in the future. Some people have told me the proposal will be defeated dramatically. But what does dramatic mean? Does it mean between 70 and 90%. But hypothetically if the proposal had that many voters opposed probably no one would propose another similar initiative for many decades. That is partly why I advocate for this proposal so strongly: because this is an all or nothing deal. In the early 1990s voters rejected a unified government for the city and county of Sacramento. No one even talks about that potential reform anymore (that I have heard).
So if this reform fails I don’t expect another reform for a decade or maybe two or three. And when we do have a proposed reform it will be regarding a different issue.
Now hypothetically if this reform passes or almost passes I think it would lead to more reforms being proposed in the future. Politicians will not advocate for serious change unless they believe it can pass at the ballot box. And the way that politicians will determine if Sacramentans will vote for change is by seeing the results for the strong mayor proposal in June.
Admittedly my ideal strong mayor proposal would not have given him veto power or special budget authority. And I certainly don’t believe he should be a council member for two years at the same time he is the city executive, but other than that I am satisfied with Kevin Johnson’s proposal. But I don’t think it is even marginally likely that the good aspects of his reforms can be enacted if his initiative is resoundingly defeated. Even if his proposal is defeated by just one hundred votes I don’t think he will use that the gain executive authority for the mayor’s office.
I think if his proposal dies at the ballot box it will be dead. If it dies by a dramatic margin it will be really dead along with any future reforms.
On the other hand most voters have a short memory. But political strategists will still use the last reform election to speculate about the potential of future reform.
Rhonda wrote:
I am glad that you care about the long term impact that the strong mayor initiative would have if it passes.
Normally I say more but I think your concern about mayors abusing their power corruptly is more than fair. Executives use their power corruptly all the time and I would not expect elected executives to be impervious to that sort of behavior. More simply said: I think there will be corrupt mayors in the future (regardless or whether or not Kevin Johnson is).
I also think that there will be corrupt city managers in the future (regardless of whether or not our current city manager is corrupt). Personally I expect that an elected executive system would lead to less corruption in the long term than our current appointed executive system.