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 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?

In general, for any form of government, I think we always have to be on our guard–bureaucracy begets more bureaucracy.

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:

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?”

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Oh gee, for some reason my comments keep getting excised from the Bee’s cupcakeland coverage of Mayor Fop and his screeching harpie bride… The only thing that unites this ridiculously pretentious pair is their unyielding quest for power without having to do the hard work necessary to achieve it, touting ‘accountability’ where there is none, and ‘reform’ which is anything but… But, there’s still that pesky FBI investigation into obstruction of the IG’s findings of fiscal malfeasance and mishandling of allegations of child sexual abuse against Johnson himself at KJ’s St. Hope cabal to look forward to — and eventually justice will out… hopefully… Have a nice day…

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.

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.