Pow. A superior court judge has sided with a former Kevin Johnson supporter named Bill Camp who filed a suit to stop the zealous mayor’s strong arm mayor push that has dominated his mayorship since early in 2009.
As of this moment, there will be no June ballot measure for Johnson. And now a word from Susie Shields who summed up a whole lot of people’s thoughts in a paragraph:
“I’m glad to see that our Mayor cannot buy this latest prize. You’re gonna have to earn it like a real person, Kevin. Work hard, honestly, ethically, transparently, humbly. Pay your dues, like everyone else. Reach out to people who could teach you a thing or two instead of bullying them and steamrolling over them. Follow the rules and the law because –guess what?– they do apply to you on occasion. Humility, mayor, humility.” Hope you’re listening Mayor Johnson. Now let’s hope Obama doesn’t fire the judge who made this ruling.
What do you think, everyone? Do you think it’s a good idea the judge shot Johnson’s push down? Or is the judge obstructing due voter process?
Thanks for the support, Mark. According to a commenter at the Bee, I’m what’s wrong with this city!
Nope, you are what’s right with it.
There is a commission meeting now to find an alternative city charter to the KJ plan. Let’s give that a chance, at least it is public and residents can comment on the process and outcome. His petition was done in private and people were dumb enough to approve it. All they did is pay people to sit in front of Raleys and have people sign up, and most knew nothing about it. I once asked if there was more info. on the measure and the guy looked at me with puzzlement. I am happy to see that it may not make the ballot, if it were to pass, Kj would have enormous new powers and he has proven that he is unfit for such new changes.
Charlie, good to see you. I am all for a transparent public process.
Maybe our superhero SMP will find it’s way to the batcave, a phonebooth… until Mayor Johnson earns it! Perhaps now Johnson can take the time to address other city priorities such as LIFE and FREEDOM for area youth and fight as hard for life and freedom as he fought/ fights for his strong mayor proposal. In addressing youth and violence we reeived an unacceptable, ineffective, insignificant make-hiself-look-good aproach but he went and continues to go all out for his SMP… Thanks for the info Mark, you are truly appreciated
Susie, you are a breath of fresh air in a city which all to often STINKS! I agree with Mark, you are what’s right with this city and you are truly appreciated.
Glad to hear from you too, do you miss Natomas Park, did you hear today that Cal Expo may move to Arco site??
Mark, I wish you had an edit button–
I’ve gotten spoiled!! 
I type so fast, (88wpm and use to my computer changing small errors) I hit submit and when it posts I find many typing/spelling errors 
I love the little faces where I can post smiling, laughing, sad… faces but I could sure use an edit button 
Charlie, there are definitely things we miss about Natomas, other things not so much. Yes I heard about Cal Expo land swap deal to Natomas. Personally, I think it’s a terrific idea. Would be a game changer for Natomas and downtown Sac. And no taxpayer burden?? Wow. My definition of a win-win-win.
RE, ok let me see about a plugin to facilitate that.
Oh good, I do hope you get an edit button. My keyboard is getting old and sticks sometimes and I read my comment and OOPS! I look like I can’t spell or write a coherent sentence.
Rhonda and Mark – thanks for your comments. I do think it is important for everyone to state their opinions and go against the grain if they feel strongly enough. 2112 does this and I do this and so do you guys. We can all learn a thing or two from people with different opinions if we open our minds a little more. It’s hard to change someone’s mind, but it’s helpful to hope that you get them to see things a little differently
You’re welcome and Well said Susie! I agree with you whole heartedly. Recently I was under a great deal of stress and would comment. in haste,
as I caught up on my reading to take my mind off of my troubles. I just couldn’t bring myself to ongoing conversations (had lots to accomplish as I went to CA Supreme court Wednesday) I’ve been sort of mean spirited (I apologize for that) But I enjoyed reading the comments of Mark and 2112 in fact I read both completely and I appreciated both writing and sharing with us and taking the time to give reasoning for their discussion, insight and opinions. I learned a great deal from the discussions. I like it when people write with emotion, passion… and stand up for their convictions and belief whether I agree or not- I can learn from everyone. Perhaps I should have taken the time to say or explain why I felt like I do, but again I’ve been under a great deal of stress… Again I agree with what you wrote.
By the way I really enjoy your site because you are one of a kind- you don’t get paid for what you do- You do it from your heart and love and that my friend is beautiful!!! 
Thanks Mark. for looking into it you are so kind
susie if you keep giving me compliments it is going to be hard to argue with you anymore
. as far as the judge’s rulings, i haven’t had time to research this, but according to the sacbee article online, this was the judge’s quote:
“The proposed initiative process (is) a revision to the city charter and, as such, is not properly placed on the ballot for a vote of the people,” the judge wrote.
if that is the case, what is the proper way to place the initiative on the ballot?
also, is there a link to read the judges entire statement? i ask this because i can’t find a quote from the judge that states if there is any specific in the SMI itself that is unconstitutional, illegal, etc.
Hi Rhonda- I don’t think you’re mean-spirited, just passionate like me
Rich- Sometimes it’s better to argue civilly, that way we listen and learn from one another.
Here’s a link to the ruling (I got it from KCRA because they actually give people information unlike the BEE):
http://www.kcra.com/download/2010/0114/22239785.pdf
Here’s a quote from the ruling:
blockquote cite=”" >
It also states that in order to get a revision on the ballot is by a charter commission or by the legislature (city council) because it merits more discussion.
I hope block quote worked…
we may be dicussing semantics here, but there may be a difference in terminology that is used. the city of sacramento has a charter which describes the powers the city has, how it is organized, etc. the judge referenced (as well as your blockquote referenced) the term “constitution”. granted their meanings are similar in nature, the city has a charter, not a constitution, at least that i have found. with that being said, if the prevention of ammendments to constitutions is the basis of not allowing the SMI to be on the ballot, isn’t it a technicality that the SMI isn’t ammending a constitution, but rather a charter?
Yes, it’s revising a charter, but the judge addresses this in his ruling. There is no precident set but he uses the state government’s ruling because the charter is in essence the city’s constitution.
The California Constitution authorizes a city to adopt a charter for its self
government. Cal Const, Art. XI § 3(a) Cal Const, Art. XI § 3(b) provides that a
the governing body or charter commission of a city may propose a charter or
“revision”. However, an “amendment” or repeal may be proposed by initiative or
by the governing body.
Subsection (c) provides that: “An election to determine whether to draft or
“revise” a charter and elect a charter commission may be required by initiative or
by the governing body.”
This case is one of first impression, as no California case has applied the
“amendment” versus “revision” analysis to City Charters, under Cal Const, Art. XI
§ 3.
He adds further:
susie, if i am reading this correctly, it sounds like the california constitution section that is referenced doesn’t hurt or help the SMI. for instance
(b) provides that a
the governing body or charter commission of a city may propose a charter or
“revision”. However, an “amendment” or repeal may be proposed by initiative or
by the governing body.
what i am reading here is an ammendment or repeal may be proposed by intiative, but it could also go another direction.
as well as:
Subsection (c) provides that: “An election to determine whether to draft or
“revise” a charter and elect a charter commission may be required by initiative or
by the governing body.”
what i am reading here is a revision to a charter may be required by initiative, but it doesn’t necessarily have to.
in both instances the use of the words “may be” does not solidify the certainty of either. meaning in the first quote, an ammenment could happen by initiative, but not necessarily. also, the second quote allows for the possibility of a charter commission to be elected to alter a charter, but not necessarily.
essentially what i am getting from the judge is that he doesn’t want to make a firm decision, he knows that whatever way he rules, the opposing side will appeal, therefore he is covering his tracks and leaving the real decision to the higher courts. essentially, the only blow to the SMI is, it will probably take too long to work its way up the judicial system to allow the SMI on the june ballot, but that doesn’t mean it is dead.
so frankly, it is much ado about nothing as far as i can see
Rich- You may be right. But the part that sticks with me is where you quoted above:
(b) provides that a
the governing body or charter commission of a city may propose a charter or
“revision”. However, an “amendment” or repeal may be proposed by initiative or
by the governing body.
What I gather from the wording is that if this is in fact a “revision” then only the governing body (city council) or charter commision of a city may propose a charter or “revision” – not a private party via the initiative process. This appears to be a revision because it changes the entire structure of the governing body. Isn’t an amendment just something that adds-on to the original charter? There’s a huge difference here. Like the judge stated earlier, a revision requires more debate and public dialogue because it is for sweeping changes.
susie, please look at the following link and who the owner of the site is:
http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2008feb/initprocess.html
please see the fourth bullet from the bottom. if the state operates that way regarding a constitutional ammendment (meaning a private party can in fact put together an initiative, meet certain requirements and then have it go to a public vote) why not the city of sacramento?
i do have to thank you for this discussion. the research i am doing on this is quite educational and informative.
Thanks for the link…I do see what you’re saying; however, the initiative process is for amendments to the constitution, not revisions. I think that word is key here. It doesn’t say anything about revisions. It all depends on whether or not KJ’s SMI completely revises the charter and structure of the governing body (which I believe it does) or simply adds to its existing body.
Here’s the definition in the dictionary:
amend- to modify,rephrase, or add to or subract from (a bill, a constitution, etc.) by formal procedure
I gather that this means it’s not changing the actual meaning, just rewording it and adding more.
revise- to alter (something written or printed), in order to correct, improve, or update.
I believe this is what the SMI is trying to do – to alter (change) the context to update and improve (in their eyes) the city charter.
But who knows for sure? I think how people interpret this depends on which side they’re on.
agreed, eventhough i am in favor of the SMI, i do think it is important that protocol is followed correctly. otherwise, why have a system.
Exactly! Hey…we agree!
WOW, Susie and Rich that was wonderful- I truly enjoyed and learned from your discussion.
Thank you both for sharing as you did! Susie, I just keep growing more impressed with you! I guess their will be no need for that red flag campaign 
I’m glad since I am real busy now….
Mark, I don’t know how I accidently posted the same post twice. Please take one away.
The amending or revising of our charter could have been one of the best Sacramento civics’ lesson of our life time. It still can be, however the current legal process must play out before that can occur. To that end, and hopefully with Mark’s approval, I have passed along the public access to the docs that Judge McMaster’s reviewed in coming to his preliminary decision. With all due respect, this is but one case, hopefully this will give a glimpse of the due diligence that prevails in our judicial system and why “due process” takes it due to get achieved.
For any lawsuit to prevail, the plaintiff assumes the task of presenting a preponderance of evidence as to stated nature of the complaint. So, Sacramento Superior Court has, for at least the last two years, made available most if not all public documents submitted to the court by opposing parties-electronically. Specifically, It was from these submitted docs that Judge McMaster’s made his tentative ruling with regards to the SMI.
If you are at all curious or interested in seeing these, Here is a map.
By following that map, one can read over all the docs that McMaster’s read and see if you follow the deliberation that ensued and how he reached his tentative ruling.
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/indexes/services.aspx
Click on Civil & Probate document viewer
Document Types-All Docs
Case # and format
Mark-CCMS
Case # 34-2009-00065404
Do not cut & paste this entire # , each portion must be entered individually.
Hit search- Scroll Down & Read to your heart’s content
Notable Docs
Plaintiff’s complaint filed on 12/1/2009
Defendant Hiltachk’s Answer on 12/31/2009
Defendant City of Sacrament’s Answer 12/31/2009
Defendant Hiltachk’s objection to preliminary injunction motion 1/4/2010
Defendant City of Sacrament’s response to preliminary injunction motion 1/4/2010
Plaintiff’s combined reply brief 1/8/2010
The terms “revision” vs “amend” were most recently dealt with last April by the State Supreme Court. McMaster’s gives credence to plaintiff’s contention that as the words apply to changing the state constitution, so should they apply to the process by which a city or county’s charter is changed. Based on testimony given on the 15th, I don’t see his preliminary ruling be changed.
If so inclined-Enjoy!
5th Gen
Sacramento 02/04/2004-No signs of the Mayor bailing out of the SMPG jet’s death-spiral yet…on top of the close to 300K contributed, which he personally contributed 38K, they are $107K in debt as of 12.31.09…and then this today from the Appellate Court:
Order denying petition filed.
“The petition for writ of mandate with request for stay is denied. Petitioner fails to show the respondent superior court erred in granting the real party in interest’s motion for preliminary injunction. Further, unlike an initiative to amend the California Constitution, which may be presented to voters only at the next election , an initiative to amend a city charter may be presented at “any” election . Accordingly, after full review of the issues by the superior court, and upon finality of that decision including appellate review, if it is ultimately determined that the measure at issue in this case may constitutionally be enacted by initiative, the measure could be placed on a future ballot. Alternatively, nothing in the superior court’s order precludes the voters from pursuing the changes proposed by the measure at issue via an initiative proposing to revise a charter and elect a charter commission.”
And according to Sacpress the mayor had this to say:
“I’m very disappointed by the decision, and that’s putting it mildly,” “At the same time, I’m inspired like never before to fight for the people of Sacramento. Today, citizens have been denied their right to vote and accountability has been told to wait in line.”
It’s amazing how the “I Mayor” fights for “We the people of the City of Sacramento” by pursuing an unconstitutional revision to our charter. It would be so refreshing for him, SAG and his Boss Mayor supporters to ” obey the law”