The reform charter commission threw Kevin Johnson a huge bone last night when it recommended the mayor be given the ability to appoint the City Manager (even though it nixed his strong mayor proposal). Considering many claim the City Manager currently has all the power, that would seem like a coup de grace.
In typical Johnson fashion the record reflects he wasn’t moved. He’s an all-or-nothing kind of warrior and he won’t relent until his proposal is either soundly defeated or soundly defeated. The odds of it passing are getting more remote by the day. A recent poll the Sac Bee reported today shows 74% of residents are AGAINST Johnson’s proposal. That number stands in stark contrast with Johnson camp assertions that the majority of Sac residents support his proposal.
Sadly the deal is this: the proposal will probably not pass. It was crafted behind closed doors and without anyone’s input but Johnson and team’s. Whomever had the bright idea to roll out a change of this magnitude without even so much as a round table discussion with stakeholders made a fatal decision that will all but cancel out any credibility Johnson has accrued in the past year. That’s not me being negative, that’s me being realistic.
Sure, Johnson is a leader, but his leadership style is not conducive to building the kind of following needed to support his ideas. True leaders–as in leaders who are able to cultivate substantive change–LEAD. That doesn’t mean they LEAD people like a general leads soldiers into battle. Life is not war. People leaders LEAD PEOPLE to CONSENSUS. And they do this by being strategic, analytical, and ALWAYS calculating the full cost of something before they construct it.
Luke 14:28: “For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’
I have beat this horse into a shapeless mass, so I realize this is not news, but I just fail to understand how someone of Johnson’s stature can not come to terms with what I believe to be such simple leadership principles.
I suppose part of it is due to the fact that Johnson (and his supporters judging by their comments) think there is a huge conspiracy against him. They see names like Anne Rudin and they perceive an ulterior motive to derail him, come hell or high water. I think that perception has compromised their sense of political reality.
The reality here is that Johnson’s unilateral decision making style is VERY UNPOPULAR, and American people with a collaborative spirit (on both sides of the political fence) generally fight it tooth and nail whenever and wherever it rears its dictatorial head. Someone needs to tell the good mayor that his strong mayor opponents represent all walks of life, and there is no conspiracy against him. Alas, there is only skepticism and various degrees of distrust.
I strongly believe Kevin Johnson could have been a political legend in this town if only he had extended an olive branch to his opponents, instead of a sword.
Hey Mark … I *knew* you wouldn’t stay away for long. Good to see your take on this, friend. Excellent points. I am getting more and more concerned every time I see a new piece of information coming out of city hall. I thought the vision was a city that works for everyone, not a city that works for the well-connected. Sigh. Pretty soon, we might all be thinking we would’ve been better off with Fargo.
absolutely beautiful article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love the way it is written. I love the insight. I love the scripture included. I love it all and thank you so much for a very very insightful article- Much respect
A friend forwarded a comment to me from an article in CALBUZ…it was an article about EBAY Meg, but the quote could apply to anyone with a given “pattern of behavior”
http://www.calbuzz.com/2009/10/press-clips-four-columns-and-a-bird-in-the-hand/
“As we used to say at the city desk, if it happens once it’s news, twice it’s a coincidence and three times, it’s a trend.” Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine in yesterday’s Calbuzz. How many trends been exhibited by our Mayor?
Food for thought…The maximum outstanding balance of all personal loans an individual can have to his/her own campaign or candidate controlled committee for state office is $100K
Gov Code 83507(b)
Sacramento City Code does not apply any maximum to a person “contributing” to their own campaign.
It allows a candidates personal loans to their campaign to be considered as a contribution-by definition. Hence no limit. As dysfunctional as the legislature is, they at least recognize and minimize the abuse that can be created by personal loans.
Does anyone else think the city should follow the state’s example of capping personal loans to campaigns?
Given the latest info available on the city clerk’s website KJ4Mayor form 460 for 01.01.09-06.30.09 Outstanding debt is $550,703.51 and Cash Balance is $17,862.35. $500K is that outstanding loans to himself. During that time frame they only took in $14,290. The Boss Mayor proposal would insure a better campaign revenue generator and one reason why your noble suggestion of him stepping away from it won’t happen.
The poll mentioned in the Bee article is a similar sampling to the one taken by Sac State early last spring…the difference is the increased % of those not supporting the BMI outright.
Mar. 2009- random sampling of 424 residents29% in favor, 36% oppose, 35% undecidied-did not know enough about it
http://www.csus.edu/SSIS/documents/Annual_Survey/final%202009%20mayoral%20report%207.pdf
From the Bee Story:
“According to a poll conducted by David Binder Research in late September, 73 percent of 400 city voters polled said they would vote no on Johnson’s proposal. The poll – a copy of which was viewed by The Bee on Tuesday – also showed that those questioned didn’t like one section giving the mayor power to fire city department heads and more than 500 other city workers.”
I’m really glad your feeling better!
PS Here’s the quick facts on SAG through 9.30.09
Outstanding Debt $103,368.56 vs Cash on hand of $4,876.39
Thanks for the insight, Mark. I appreciate it as always. Well done!
M. Johnson wrote
Consensus building is sometimes a good way to resolve political disputes but sometimes it is unrealistic.
Some classic examples are how the United Kingdom and France would not oppose Germany and Italy as the axis invaded their first few countries. The UK and France sought to maintain peace at the cost of territory. You might say that International Politics and city politics have nothing to do with one another.
The commonality though is that the two sides in both cases have strictly divergent interests. In the World War Two example the Axis want to continually expand. In the city politics example the city council does not want to relinquish any of it’s power and the mayor presumably wants to acquire power. If the mayor had gone to the city council and asked for a compromise they would have told, “No. But thanks for the advance notice that you would like to invade our territory.”
The United Kingdom and France acted foolishly by allowing Italy and Germany to absorb three countries before taking a stand against aggression. Would the city council really make the same mistake?
The point is that when you have no common purpose attempting to form a consensus is foolish.
Just to be clear I support Kevin Johnson’s proposal because I believe in having elected executives. It is the same as electing your president or governor or county sheriff. The reason is because governmental executive decisions are inherently political decisions. Therefore the voters should be able to hold their executives accountable at the ballot box.
I guess you could call it throwing a bone but don’t be so certain that the bone has any meat on it. The council is not going to put their proposal on the ballot this coming June. In fact I have never heard the council indicate that it intends to put it’s proposal on the ballot ever. Honestly, I do like bones but they don’t do anything for me without the meat. And I doubt that the council intends to put meat on the bone. If the council ever puts an initiative on the ballot that enhances the mayor’s power it will be because it will strategically help then not loose as much of their power to the mayor or because they are afraid that if they don’t that they will loose their reelection campaigns.
I suppose a presumption of my writings is that council member generally let their electoral interests interfere with their views how to make government more effective. Another possibility is that they just don’t believe that the executives in a government should be voted for at the ballot box. They may well be against having a president who is chosen by the voters. Either way the council is opposing a needed change.
Ok, ok granted one must establish a common purpose. Granted. That’s a given. One can’t lead a disparate group of people to consensus without a clear purpose. But are you implying common purpose cannot be attained across a city the size of Sacramento? If so, I completely disagree. He COULD establish a common purpose if he knew how. But alas we cannot give what we do not have.
Just to be clear: many people support the idea of a strengthened mayor’s position ; they just don’t support Kevin Johnson. He has lost credibility. Personally. People do not trust HIM in that position. Whose fault is that? HIS fault.
About meat on the bone.. you make a good point.
I suspect that if Kevin Johnson had wanted to only work on increasing police protection instead of focusing on his proposal for an elected executive then he could have formed a consensus.
As for the idea that he doesn’t know how to form a consensus that seems like a possibility.
One think I don’t like about consensus on the city council is that it diminishes clarity on who to vote if a person wants to move the council in a new direction. For example if half the council advocated for increasing police funding while half argued for decreased funding then I would know who to vote for if this was my main issue. In other places a consensus system of decision making makes more sense; like in a volunteer group where the decision makers are the doers too.
This is just some random post I found at the Sacramento Bee. Admittedly it is offensive. Discretion is advised.
My point in posting it is first I appreciate how everyone on this site is so civil.
My second reason in posting it is to show how offensive and ridiculous comments have become regarding the mayor and his proposal. I have noticed this problem in our discourse on many websites and from people on both sides of the Kevin Johnson divide. Even the Sacramento Bee has given itself over to false claims regarding the proposal. Regardless of what side you are on we need to be less offensive in our discourse.
Note: I won’t be offended if this removed from the comments here. I can understand why it might be. the comment quoted was written at 11:41am today in response to the Sacramento Bee story about the mayor getting engaged, which should be happy news.
Ed: that person is an isolated case. I have not seen that level of vitriol from anyone else. Have you?
I see a lot of swearing. But you are right that this deviates from normal discourse the in offensiveness. I do think that a lot of writing has been just as uninformative as this post. And a lot of writing actively attacks people.
I suppose the reason I posted it was because it stood out (which is sort of your point). But the writer does say that the Bee erases a lot of his or her work, which is why we might not see much of this vehemence.
Mark said: “Just to be clear: many people support the idea of a strengthened mayor’s position ; they just don’t support Kevin Johnson. He has lost credibility. Personally. People do not trust HIM in that position. Whose fault is that? HIS fault.”
I want to add that, no matter how you feel about KJ, the Strong Mayor Initiative on the ballot is deeply flawed.
Even if KJ weren’t the mayor, THIS initiative is not right for Sacramento.
I would like to see an open, public discourse on changing the city’s charter–much broader than the Charter Review Committee has engaged in so far. If most people do support a strengthened mayor, then great. Let’s see what the people want. Let’s not have some initiative foisted on us by people who do not necessarily have the city’s best interests in mind.
6 degrees: what do you think about the idea of a strengthened council that is floating around now?
For *any* ideas that get circulated, my first question is “What is the problem that we’re trying to solve?”
If someone can articulate an answer to that, then the next question is “Is this the best way to solve it?” or even “Does this idea even remotely address the stated problem?”
That being said, I haven’t heard anything about a proposal for strengthening the council, unless you’re referring to the Bee article about converting it to a full-time rather than part-time council…In that case, I’d have to say that my first reaction is to say I don’t like it. Do we need the expense? What would we as citizens get out of it? I’d have to hear some pretty strong supportive arguments to be convinced that it’s necessary.
In general, for any form of government, I think we always have to be on our guard–bureaucracy begets more bureaucracy. It can’t help itself. It will always be the fat guy at the pizza buffet; it’s up to us to cut him off. (Yes, this from your resident lefty.)
6 Degrees wrote:
I think a bureaucrat is someone who works for a government. The council is not part of any bureaucracy. The council in the current rules is suppose to be held accountable for everything that happens in our city government. But practically speaking the council being part time reduces their ability to oversee government and analyze potential changes to the law.
6 Degrees also wrote:
Of course I believe in more fundamental changes to our government than making the council full time. I also think increasing the size of the council would lead to the members becoming more specialized in analyzing specific aspects of government just like the US House’s members are each experts on the subjects they deal with in committee because there are so many of them and they each serve on only one or two committees.
I also think having a designation next to their name besides incumbent would add to a voter’s knowledge in the ballot box. I am referring to a partisan affiliation. But I think in Sacramento we could do better than just Republican or Democratic. We could set up a city wide system for forming political parties and candidates being nominated by those parties.
An example with details: A Sacramento City Labor Party would be formed if three candidates from three different council districts each acquired twenty voter signatures from their district. If more candidates run and some were from the same district then they would be voted on by anyone in the district who chooses to vote in the Labor primary. Only one candidate could win in each district. The candidates who win or are unopposed would become the leaders of the Sacramento City Labor Party. They would have the authority to nominate candidates for city council in every district that a leader represents. Therefore if the Labor Party did not have a leader from district three then they could not nominate a candidate in that district. The Labor Party’s nominees would be voted on by all voters in the June election. If the nominee received first or second place then he or she would be one the two candidates in the November election.
The main purpose of this system is for voters to have real information about the candidates when they are voting at the ballot box. Currently candidates are allowed to lie to voters about themselves (for example I have fought for working people and for more effective police protection). The party identification would give voters real insight as to what a candidate was for or against. A party like Labor would be able to have a consistent voice from year to year and voters would have the opportunity to understand what their candidates are for and against. A party like Labor would even have its own platform, fundraising, and volunteers. If a voter didn’t pay attention to politics for a year he or she would still be able to show up and cast an informed based on the partisan information he or she had from years prior.
Also politicians would become consistent from campaign to law making because they would become less tied to the interests of their funders and more tied to the interests of their party. Therefore voters who did pay close attention to politics could be confident that who a candidate was on the campaign trail would not be changed once he or she was in office.
I am really surprised that you changes the title of this article because of what I said about the bone not having any meat. Besides that I have never seen an article’s name change, I was surprised because I thought you had a good point even if it might be a little improbable. What seemed improbable is that the city councilmen sincerely are interested in increasing the power of the mayor. But despite what seems likely your point about the council giving him a bone may well be correct because often people say what they mean after all. And you were simply writing from the perspective that if the council says they want something then that means that they do. There is nothing wrong with that. I just argue every point a lot of the time especially when it comes to points in favor keeping the mayor within the current confines of the city charter.
I see Anne Rudin as simply being in favor of the mayor having legislative power but not have executive power. Personally I have the exact oppose political opinion. I think the mayor should have the executive power but none of the legislative power. As far as conspiracy goes, I don’t think it is a secret that Anne Rudin along with much of the council want to prevent the mayor from acquiring executive power; therefore it is not a conspiracy as by definition a conspiracy is a secret plot.
But you may be right that some writers are talking about a conspiracy. What would actually be a conspiracy is if these people were secretly plotting to pass the strong mayor initiative while publicly they denounce it. What are the chances of that?
Ed, my title was made in haste.. your point jibed with what I had originally intended… so I integrated it into the title as a means of clarifying where I was coming from..
I should clarify that I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the change you made to the title. I just like to be contrary.