This article has been updated 2/20/2010 9:55am.
. If the mayor is not seeking new P.R. representation, he should be.. OK I admit that was a bombastic headline intended to provoke double-takes. 
Not THAT “F” bomb! Get your mind outta the gutter! It’s only a parody of a KCRA newscast covering the Ray Kerridge press conference. Of course I’m just having some fun with satire here, but the point remains: KJ’s P.R. really needs a reboot. Check out this book, Mayor:
Armchair P.R. advice aside, should we laud Johnson for admitting his failure? Not if he is passive aggressively implying that he has only failed because there is some conspiracy against him among the council. That seems to be what he is saying. KCRA quotes him: “There is tension among city council members.” Errrr no. There is tension BETWEEN Johnson and city council members. Gosh I wonder why. I wonder if it’s because the first thing Johnson did as mayor was attempt a hostile takeover of city government? Hmmmmmmmmm.
I am really beginning to think Johnson perceived the entire city government as broken and truly believed he was going to be the people’s hero who reformed it. He was dead wrong. Instead of reviving city government, he set out to reform it. The result? The majority of his actions have been divisive and NOT conducive to team building and cohesion. He has done just about ZERO to build bridges (and trust) to instill a true spirit of collaboration with the council. In fact I speculate he never wanted to work with the council in the first place.
But in the end I agree with Johnson. Even though his press conference language is all but guaranteeing he will never win another election again, he has indeed failed to lead at city hall. It’s really too bad he jumped the gun and wanted to be strong mayor before he ever took a shot at being a strong leader.
Strong or weak in mayoral status, Johnson was expected to be the type of leader who UNITED people. That was the spirit of the Obama campaign and people were under the [false] impression that was also the spirit of Johnson’s. It’s not that he has failed to “change the way city government works,” it’s that he has failed to be an effective leader.
In my opinion Johnson’s failure to work WITH the city council (I’m pretty sure the first time he called them his “colleagues” was a week ago–only after his SAMI bombed) will most likely be his legacy unless he does a complete 180. I THOUGHT RE Graswich might bring some sanity to the table, but that has definitely failed to materialize–in fact it seems Johnson’s rep has taken on even more water since Graswich got on board.
Finally, I think it’s astonishing people are STILL coaxing Johnson to continue fighting for strong mayor given all that has transpired. Those who care to see him succeed should be imploring him to step away from the strong mayor thing for good and start BUILDING BRIDGES–something that I have called for him to do since DAY ONE
A Joe Sac classic! I love the remix! Hey check out how kj swings his fist when he says the word “change.” I guess that’s why you stuttered that part??? Well done!!
this article is not qualified, nor dignified enough to warrant an actual response from me.
Rich, good thing because this site hasn’t been “qualified” or “dignified” since its inception. In fact to my knowledge not a single entity has ever acknowledged it as anything more than a gag site. The spirit of parody has been here since the beginning and as long as the site is online I hope that spirit never dies.
I think that the current system of Sacramento is broken. That is about the constitutional structure set up by the city. I believe in an elected executive government. I do think that there are effective alternatives to an administrator chosen by the voters but that the system in Sacramento and most cities in California is not an effective alternative.
Mark, I hope the spirit never dies either. You keep on keeping on and you/ your site possesses quality and dignity. I agree with the first post- a classic!
I think if the mayor fails and the mayor admits it, then we should see this as a positive development. I remember how people said that President Bush needs to admit his failures. I think I even remember people saying this about our mayor.
Given all this I am very surprised at Joe’s reaction to the mayor admitting to failure.
I am surprised that Joe is focused on the electoral aspect of what the mayor said instead of being pleased that he is talking about moving in a direction closer to what you have asked for. Or you could have focused on why you don’t trust what the mayor says. But admittedly it is interesting to talk about what he does in terms of if it will help him get reelected or not.
I just consider understanding what the mayor is doing or trying to do more relevant to me than if he is going to be reelected. I suppose there are no alternative articles evaluating Kevin Johnson’s potential elector success though. So that is a least a justification for the focus of this article.
Another issue: Do I want Kevin Johnson to “build bridges” with the city council?
As far as I understand our present situation, developers have a lot of influence in city hall. Developers have used their “bridges” to build houses in flood zones and generally build the wrong buildings in the wrong places in order to maximize their personal profit. I don’t think I want Kevin Johnson “building bridges” with council members who have very strong “bridges” with developers.
In a system where we all have the same mission we should all “build bridges.” Like if we work in a factory we never oppose each other we all just do our part in our larger mission. But government isn’t the same. I want a mayor who fights for what is right and doesn’t just go with the flow.
And I don’t know if Kevin Johnson is going to be for the developers all the time or if he is going to be an independent voice but I certainly don’t want a mayor who is committed to working with everyone to the point where he supports the council’s vision even when he disagrees with that vision.
I think that “building bridges” with the current city council at least requires Kevin Johnson to serve developers and I don’t agree with that at all.
“I think if the mayor fails and the mayor admits it, then we should see this as a positive development.”
I think whether or not it is positive development, depends on the true reason for him admitting it. In church the choir often sings a song, “We fall down, but we get up…” Johnson as mentioned falling down but getting back up (the Bee seems to suggest it’s due to boxing/ knocked down…) But in many black churches (including St Paul) it’s a song sung by the choir regarding sin and changing… I don’t know if Johnson is singing a hymn from memory or if he actually means the words he is saying. If the mayor fails and admits it for reasons other than gaining public approval then it’s a step in the right direction. But as it stands the journey of a thousand miles (and Johnson has many many miles to go) begins with its first steps…. I understand Johnson has to crawl before he can walk, walk before he can run but quite frankly I haven’t seen him get off his treadmill of telling the people what he thinks they want to hear and doing so with little to no sincerity. Some could argue positive development and others can argue Johnson’s status quo “got to give the people- give the people what they want”- to hear.
In building bridges, I would never want Johnson to agree with the council on every topic and wouldn’t want the council to agree with Johnson on every topic. I don’t think people are asking for a Stepford government…I think we’re asking him not to burn the whole house down by lighting torches to every bridge leading to the people of each district by ignoring, dismissing the council we vote into office…Because it is obvious to many of us Johnson doesn’t represent every resident within the city of Sacramento. Some of us he’ll turn a blind eye and deaf ear towards. Therefore I value my council person who actually will hear, see, and address our concerns… I don’t know if Johnson is going to be an independent voice. I don’t know if Johnson has an independent thought. I don’t know the roles of everyone Johnson surrounds himself with. I wouldn’t mind a mayor who fights for what is right– when he is fighting for the people and not himself. Heck, if the man won’t sincerely see all the p-e-o-p-l-e who the heck is he fighting for? corporations? developers? special interest? Before I’d want Johnson fighting for me- (and it’s not likely that he would considering I can’t pay for it) but before I’d want him fighting for me, I’d want to see him fight his own worse enemy– fight his own ego… Quite frankly I don’t think there is room in city hall sessions for Johnson and the residents of Sacramento considering all the space Johnson’s ego will take. He can’t look at or fight for us- he’s too busy looking at himself and he’s neglecting to first fight his worse enemy – himself.
I am concerned that Kevin Johnson may be looking to the interests of his financial contributors also. This is a concern I have for all politicians though; I don’t think of our mayor as being more or less influenced than other elected officials.
I think forced public financing is a strait-forward solution to a strait-forward problem. But the supreme court has ruled consistently that to prevent politicians from using private funding is unconstitutional. Similarly the court has had the wisdom to rule that law enforcement on Indian reservations may not enforce the law on Non-Indians. On a reservation in Idaho this has lead to lawlessness since the local police have refused to come onto the reservation. In case someone didn’t understand I am being sarcastic in calling the supreme court wise. I think new members on the supreme court is long overdue.
Obviously the simple solution to the indian problem is to allow the law enforcement that is already present to carry out justice without regard to race but that would be unconstitutional because of president from the 1970s. Or what about when the court majority decided that the federal government could not have a law against rape. Did you all know that the only other country that allows an unelected body to have this much influence over democratic laws is Iran. That is right; America and Iran have this commonality.
I don’t really think that the supreme court is inherently awful. My solution is to put wiser people on the court.
Ironically senators mostly just check that a court candidate has a lot of legal knowledge an no current ideological positions. Never mind that all justices enact their ideological positions but that ever since Robert Bork they don’t admit them. I have taken a detour from talking about the mayor of all Sacramentans.