At the time I remember thinking, “Whatever dude, go write an addendum or something.” But given the increasingly threatening series of storms swirling around city hall on Johnson’s watch, it appears Rich’s gloomy forecast might not have been so far off the radar after all. Perhaps Mayor Johnson is beginning to regret running–or worse, perhaps residents are beginning to regret electing him.

In another “only-on-kay-jay’s-watch” bizzaro plot twist , the Sac Bee is reporting Johnson is threatening to SUE, yes SUE, the United States of America for blacklisting him for federal funding.  This is quite surprising.  Last I heard, Johnson was saying the guhment’s investigation was routine; that he was not the personal target of it; that he was sure he would be exonerated; and–most famously–that the city of Sacramento had nothing to worry about in terms of federal funding.. you know, that the city attorney had already said there wasn’t going to be a problem.

What happened to all those assurances? Mayor Johnson doesn’t appear to be too assured any more.  So what does that mean? Should we also be concerned? I mean, come on, it’s not every day that an elected official threatens to sue the very government that ultimately presides over their office. Isn’t that like suing one’s employer?

Let’s do a fun little pretend exercise to put all this in perspective: Let’s say there is a [fictitious] conglomerate corporation called Moca Mola that sells beverages. And let’s say Moca Mola’s vitamin water division is in deep trouble and failing miserably as a business due to horrible management and fiscal negligence for the past decade. Moca Mola is even thinking of dropping them all together from its line-up. As a last ditch effort to save its own arse, vitamin water decides to hire a  new CEO.

The vitamin water division begins the headhunting process and come across a polished hustler named Kelvin Jensen who is VERY interested in the job.  Jensen has a lot of energy, and seems to have the kind of enthusiasm it would take to revitalize the failing vitamin water company. After a series of panel interviews in which Jensen mesmerizes demoralized company employees by painting a stirring rags to riches tale of himself, and steadfastly guaranteeing to personally put vitamin water back on the map and return them to beverage world Utopia, Jensen naturally becomes the leading candidate for the job.

But not so fast. During the screening process the vitamin water company HR folks find out Jensen used to work for another company that received funding from the vitamin water’s parent company, Moca Mola. Furthermore, they find out Moca Mola is actively investigating Jensen for alleged improprieties, and has even formally announced Jensen can no longer receive funding from Moca Mola under any circumstances! Ever! Ack!

When the vitamin water brass hears about Jensen’s shady past, particularly with respect to his relationship with its parent company(!), they ask Jensen to explain. Jensen assures the  vitamin water execs and employees that his snafu with Moca Mola is all one big mix-up, and he is confident that he will be cleared shortly and his blacklist status will have no impact on vitamin water financing. Vitamin water execs are suspicious, but they forge ahead anyway because company employees have demanded Jensen be hired.

With profits sagging, its future in jeopardy, and its employees on the verge of a coup de grace, vitamin water miraculously gambles and hires Jensen–despite his issues with its parent company. After all, Jensen gave his word on being exonerated, and Moca Mola investigators even cleared Jensen of criminal misconduct. Plus, they like his style and hope his high profile wll improve their bottom line. So Jensen is hired, throws a big party for himself with a 40 foot Moca Mola flag as a stage backdrop (a true company man!) and vitamin water continues to receive financing from Moca Mola.

But there’s one little hitch. You see for one reason or another, vitamin water decided not to tell Moca Mola Jensen was on payroll, and more importantly that Jensen is on Moca Mola’s blacklist.

“But wouldn’t Moca Mola know someone on their blacklist was receiving their money every month???” you ask.

Amazingly, NO. See, Moca Mola is so flippin’ big, and so unorganized, and so bureaucratic, and so utterly irresponsible, they haplessly send vitamin water millions of dollars every month without any system of checks and balances whatsoever. For all Moca Mola knows, they could be financing an operation funded by the Columbian Drug Cartel and they wouldn’t know unless someone actually held a national press conference and informed the entire country Pablo Escobar himself was personally signing the chyecks for deposit–and even then they might not do anything.

Either way, the vitamin water brass start getting nervous when word gets out that Jensen is on vitamin water company’s payroll, and their legal team decides to hire Punkbusters Consulting to investigate whether or not Moca Mola would in fact actually stop funding if they got wind of Jensen being on their payroll.

“This sounds like a bunch of hogwash,” you scoff. “Vitamin water would just pick up the phone and call Moca Mola president and ask him … right??? I mean, aren’t they technically the same company??? Why spend money to have Punkbusters figure it out???”

Well duh. Frankly I haven’t the foggiest idea. But Punkbusters gets a pretty penny, and their main investigator dude knows everyone who is anyone at Moca Mola, and plus, duh, its customary to hire expensive consultants when all else fails.

Shocker: After a few months of some good old-fashioned snooping and analysis, Punkbusters Consulting publicly announces Jensen will in fact be a problem for vitamin water’s funding if Moca Mola finds out he is on payroll. In response, Jensen reflexively declares himself innocent of any wrongdoing, and again assures  the execs and employees that he will be cleared soon… very soon…

A week goes by..  and then..

Shocker #2: Jensen threatens to SUE Moca Mola

“That’s it!” Jensen’s spokesperson announces to the press. “We will sue the bottle caps off Moca Mola if they don’t remove Jensen from their blacklist… NOW!!”

“No way!” you scream. “Why would Jensen sue his employer’s parent company?? He’s a company man, isn’t he?? That makes no sense. Who in the world is advising this guy!!?? Moca Mola has not even officially weighed in yet! So WHAT if Punkbusters Consulting says Jensen will jeopardize funding, what do THEY know?? I even heard that Jensen has said he is personal friends with the president of Moca Mola?? Why doesn’t Jensen just call the prez and say ‘yo wadup with the benjamins’??”

Again, I haven’t the foggiest idea. All I know is that this is turning out to be one big storm after the next on Johnson’s watch, and when early detractors said Jensen Johnson would regret his decision to compete for the job, they may have been more prophetic than people originally thought… maybe..

What’s next? There’s no telling with The Cloud at the helm. Every week seems to bring a new storm…  while the budget deficit widens… as the Moca world turns..

Citing the state’s decision not to hold a special election in June, and the cost-prohibitive price tag of a special city election (estimated to be a whopping $1.25 million), K-to-the-J declared his strong mayor shove push has been officially scrapped shelved until November at the earliest.

While this announcement may have come as a surprise to some local residents,  even more jolting was the mayor’s announcement of his new focus.  You’re never gonna believe this. Are you sitting down? Mayor Johnson told the Bee the city deficit should be his and the council’s main priority!

Oh fer cryin out loud why didn’t WE think of that!!??

Seriously, we could have told the mayor the budget needed to be his main focus–oh wait, we did.. on multiple occasions.. in a multitude of ways. But apparently he was tuning us out. After all, he doesn’t “take things personally,” so perhaps he just wrote off our cautionary notes as ad hominem personal attacks and blissfully ignored them.

Upon KJ’s announcement, his press machine was in full effect as of 11:39a today. At that time I got a lengthy email from SAG–not the Screen Actor’s Guild, but the so-called “grass roots” organization called Sacramentans for Accountable Government [ed: local conspiracy theorists claim it is actually an operational store front hatched by KJ and his staff]. I signed up for their newsletter when the site first launched (hence mine was not one of the emails they allegedly gleaned from the the Friends of Obama list without my permission, as they did many other unsuspecting Sac voters.. from what I am told).

In today’s email (paradoxically titled “We Did It!”), SAG dutifully reminds us it would not be financially responsible (my words, no theirs), to launch a city-only election, and of course that was never their intent [ed note: of course it wasn't Joe-- you idiot!]. The ghost writer goes on to say:

“In the meantime, there is a more urgent priority: our city budget. Every day, we read the news of families losing their homes, their savings, and their jobs.  We are facing a deficit of more than $50 million. It will require tough choices – and the City Council’s complete focus..“

Hmmm. So apparently SAG just got wind (psssssssss) of the deficit problem, too. On the same day KJ did. Hmmm. In the words of the great Keith Sweat “Somethin’ somethin’ somethin’ sonethin’ just aint right..”

Ok enough biting sarcasm. Here’s the bottom line: The only thing that is turning out to be transparent about KJ’s mayorship are his ulterior MOTIVES!

My favorite part of SAG’s email today was this little gem:

“Unfortunately, some of the defenders of the status quo have used our reform efforts as a reason to obstruct the progress we need to make on the budget. They’ve delayed instead of taking action.”

First of all, this “Defenders of the status quo” thing sounds like is was penned by Steve Maviglio  (no offense Steve). Steve has consistently written off strong mayor opposition as simply sour grapes Fargo mud slowing the wheels of progress. That could not be further  from the truth. There are serious and realistic concerns over Johnson’s credibility, not to mention his overt aversion to transparency and accountability since he took office. Lots of folks flat out don’t trust Kevin Johnson. Not all of them have political motives. Johnson’s focus should be on the budget, yes, but it should also be on BUILDING BRIDGES, not hosting pep rallies to further his own agenda imperatives.

Secondly, what in the world did SAG mean when they said these so-called “defenders of the status quo” were “Obstruct[ing] progress WE need to make on the budget” ?  Huh? WHO is obstructing progress again? The voters? WOW. Now there is a some wild blame-shifting for ya.  WE, the voters, were ready for Johnson to start making progress on the budget the day he plopped down in the mayor’s chair (the chair in the mayor’s office, that is). How utterly hypocritical (if not offensive) it is for Mayor Johnson–or any of his covert operatives–to school the voters on the city’s priorities given KJ’s now legendary priority focus on his own agenda.

Don’t shoot the messenger, but Mayor Johnson is–in this Joe’s mind– his own worst enemy. He has no one to blame but himself for any “obstruction of progress” and every new controversial move he makes to further his own agenda pushes another several thousand people over the fence. Mayor Johnson it is time to start acting like a leader and not a boss. Start serving. Service to others is your credo. Remember?

Here are my SacBee.com comments in response to an article (http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1532584.html) they posted today about the strong mayor referendum. Maybe this week I will just keep adding thoughts to this article as they occur. Feel free to pile up the comments!

Dear Sac Bee: the hot topic is not the referendum, it’s the mayor himself. Johnson’s 1st priority should have been building bridges; instead, it seems he is bent on bulldozing them. The mayor has extrapolated the idea of “change” to mean “city government reform my first six months in office” & quite frankly I can’t believe what I am seeing. I wonder what people would think of Obama if he got to DC and within the first 30 days launched a referendum to, e.g., do away with congress, and nullify the, e.g., secretary of defense’s powers. I want to see Mayor Johnson work within the current system for a while. I want to see what kind of collaborator & negotiator he is going to be. I want to see how many group homes he’s going to visit, and how many ride-alongs he’s going to go on. I want to know how many gang summits he’s going to attend. Leadership is influence. Mayor Johnson please start influencing and stop bulldozing. We put our faith in you. Let’s see some sweat equity.

Granted the city is in bad shape and the council did not prioritize public safety with the previous mayor. We know that. But that doesn’t mean the whole system is broken and must be reformed in 2009. I also believe (and I said this on Eric Hogue’s radio show last year) that the council could be a highly motivated, productive one with the right leadership influence. I steadfastly believe that. On the other hand, I believe the strong mayor structure might be good IF the council still had a lot of power to ensure neighborhoods are represented fairly, but again, this mayor has a lot of proving to do before I support that.

One more thing: Who is making the decisions for mayor Johnson? No one knows because he hasn’t been TRANSPARENT in terms of sharing the decision-making/strategy/advisement process at Camp KJ. He and his team are conducting themselves like he won the presidency. What is with all the spin doctoring and suits and formalities and dark sunglasses? what is with the long list of advisers? How many blue collar working folks are on that advisory team Mayor Johnson? How many mothers whose sons have been murdered? How many business people that were bankrupted by the economy? How many people whose homes were foreclosed? Stop playing games. We know the definition of “grass roots,” and we are not seeing it.

Strong mayor push or power grab? Transparency or visibility? Accountability or answerability? Priority or imperative? Words mean different things to different people, but when it comes to persuasive speech, it’s paramount the speaker qualify his words before using them to pitch his ideas.  Ironically this is called communication transparency and I think it is something Mayor Johnson should really begin paying attention to, else I fear–yes, fear, as I do want him to succeed–his approval rating (which he doesn’t seem to care about, but should), may continue to slide.

Here I will give some examples of how KJ has leveraged several key words to denote concepts and ideologies, and how his legislative definitions of those words are in conflict with their widely accepted denotative meanings. I will also show how those conflicts are now feeding negative perceptions about KJ, and make a few suggestions on how he might remedy.  I will also respond to a comment Steve Maviglio left on one of the joesacramento.com blogs with respect to transparency and the strong mayor referendum KJ has launched.

When we refashion words to mean something other than their widely-accepted meanings (especially to promote/sell our ideas), experience tells us protest–and even upheaval–is certain to follow. We needn’t look further than the recent Prop 8 debacle for evidence.

Words are defined in three principle ways:

1) Denotative: The agnostic dictionary definition, i.e. “Marriage is a union of two entities”
2) Stipulative: Used in specific context: “I am married to my job”
3) Legislative: Enacting a personal definition: “Marriage means x to me, so it should also mean x to you”).

It seems like Kevin Johnson has repeatedly leveraged words in a legislative context to justify his ideas and approach, and in my opinion such a strategy is dangerous because when words are used to mean something different than what people actually generally accept, it appears as though the speaker is either ignorant, hasn’t thought his plan out thoroughly, or simply is attempting to slide his ideas through using  EQUIVOCATION (more on equivocation shortly).

Here are some examples of what I’m referring to…

“Change“
Denotative definition: to make the form, nature, content of (something) different from what it is.
KJ definition: City government reform.
[Source: Kevin Johnson in Sacbee responding to charge his strong mayor push might alienate him from city council members: "I didn't run to be popular, I got elected and won by such a large margin that people said, 'We want change in our community, we don't want business as usual."].

Opinion: Here Mayor Johnson has decided change=reform. Compare to marriage=man+woman. Yikes. Like proponents of Prop 8, Johnson thinks we should agree with his definition of “change.” That is why it is legislative. Again, legislative definitions have no place in the public forum UNLESS they are fully qualified BEFOREHAND (i.e. if Johnson had said up front: “To ME change means a strong mayor system push immediately following election day. Change=Reform.”)

Also, the “popularity” statement was arguably the worst thing he could have said at a time when he is trying to gain support for his ideas.  To me it is inconceivable Johnson relied on popularity (and $2 million) to get elected, but then once elected he declares he no longer cares about popularity. I will all but guarantee Barack Obama will NEVER say he doesn’t care about being popular.

“Transparency“
Denotative definition: In government: Citizen access to information (such as plans,  Freedom of information acts, Administrative procedures acts, debates, Published government audit reports–includes access for disabled, economically challenged, technology challenged, et al)
KJ definition: Personal visibility on television, radio,  bullpen office structure
[Source: Steve Maviglio on joesacramento.com: "As for transparency, Kevin has been holding press availabilities every Tuesday before Council meetings, holding town halls, office hours, contributing to two community newspaper chains, appearing on Fox every Monday morning for viewer questions, and at least a half hour every week on News10 for web-fed questions."]

In my estimation Steve is confusing visibility with government transparency. I could be visible all day at my office, and promise all kinds of things to people, but unless they know precisely what I am up to via my documented plans, measurable goals, reports, audits, et al, they might still wonder what the heck I was up to. The Johnson campaign needs to state their definition of transparency–and accountability!–prominently for all to see, then stay consistent with those definitions; because again, their definitions seem to vary from widely-accepted ones.

“Accountability”
Denotative definition: The (ethical) obligation to report, explain, or justify something; answerable.
KJ definition: The thing that will happen IF you make me strong mayor.

Opinion: First, there is no accountability without a governing contract. Implicit accountability is a complete waste of time. KJ’s definition is not only legislative, but given the absence of contractual commitments in his strong mayor push, it is fundamentally incomplete.

Example: You and I go into business together. We promise each other we will “do what’s right at all times.” I go and and spend all our money on parties and other frivolous expenditures. We run out of money. You are livid. You say, “I thought you promised to do the right thing JOE!? What happened?” Quiz time: Am I accountable to you at this juncture?

If you said yes, you are incorrect. There is no accountability because we only loosely, and legislatively, defined our ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS to one another.

In other words, I can easily respond, “Partying?! I was networking! And networking is the right thing to do in business!”  [This is called EQUIVOCATION. Equivocation is a common fallacy people use to attempt to win arguments by changing the meaning of words to suit their arguments. Equivocation and legislative word defintion go hand in hand].

At this point you can scream at me until you are blue in the face, but you haven’t a legal leg to stand on because we never mutually defined what “doing what’s right” meant. We may have come to CONSENSUS, but we didn’t clearly and formally define what we were consenting to. Of course CONSENSUS among stakeholders is the hallmark of MODERN leadership practices, but it’s worthless without formal agreement. [On a side note, in my experience, consensus-building is unpopular with the intolerant, the impatient, the power-hungry, the presumptuous, and/or the arrogant.. so formal contracts are not too popular with these types of folks either. Maybe we should ask KJ to "pledge" to us similar to the way he pledged to the fire department?]

In summary, there is NO accountability without contract. Period. End of story. Show me a contract with black and white escalation paths, and explicit repercussions and corrective action plan for failed policy and/or practices, and I might be more interested.

A closing thought: Accountability is not–by any stretch of one’s imagination–something that one bestows on another simply because the person pines for it. Before one is granted the powers that will produce accountability, one must first prove their worthiness. Winning an election for a weak mayor position is quite different than winning one for a strong mayor position. Is it truly responsible to promote an unproven talent?  Would you make a new employee CEO of your company? Would you make a high school phenom the captain of your NBA franchise and author of your team playbook? And don’t tell me the current structure is irrevocably broken and can not be fixed, because there ARE other cities the size of Sacramento (and bigger) with “weak mayor system” and they have done fine. Of course change could be needed (see more below about city manager), but change does NOT equal reform.

One more closing thought. Instead of launching proposed SOLUTIONS to the problems at city hall, perhaps KJ should learn what the specific PROBLEMS are first, and then share them with us, one by one, in list form, and show us the impact of these problems? I thought the AUDIT was to accomplish just that? Why is KJ proposing solutions before he LEARNS the exact problems?

KJ can’t afford to lose any more credibility. It’s high time he start speaking in direct terms, using tangible examples and evidence to support his arguments, and stop playing with words.

And now a few words in response to a comment Steve Maviglio (KJ campaign chief and strategist), left here on our site.

Steve wrote: “As for transparency, Kevin has been holding press availabilities every Tuesday before Council meetings, holding town halls, office hours, contributing to two community newspaper chains, appearing on Fox every Monday morning for viewer questions, and at least a half hour every week on News10 for web-fed questions”

First, I acknowledge this is WAY more than Fargo ever did, and it is commendable. But I think it’s important to distinguish between PRESS AVAILABILITY and GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY. Once again, I am impelled to state the denotative definition of a word because I am continually amazed by the prevalence of legislative definitions lately.

Let’s clarify a few things here:

What is Transparency?
From Princeton: Easily understood or seen through (because of a lack of subtlety); “a transparent explanation”. In government: Citizens’ access to information; facilitating their understanding of decision-making processes.

Examples of Government Transparency
-Freedom of information acts
-Administrative procedures acts
-Broadcasted debates (note: many other cities have held debates on strong mayor, and televised!)
-Published government audit reports
-Advertised government positions

Withstanding that widely-accepted definition, first and foremost we should be able to agree that DISSEMINATION & ACCESSIBILITY OF INFORMATION are the hallmarks of transparency, not VISIBILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL. Hence I submit while KJ himself may be transparent, the information we want is NOT.

KJ seems to be pining for more power, yet we don’t really know exactly what he intends to do with it, do we? Can we see examples other than the two predominant ones provided so far: 1) fixing potholes; 2) city manager firing employees for budgetary reasons?.

Steve wrote: “And if you needed a better example of why we need an modern charter for city governance, look at this week’s action. The CITY MANAGER made the decision to lay off 8 city employees, and then notified the Mayor and Council the day after it happened. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t your Mayor and Council be accountable for actions like this? I rest my case.”

It’s one example, granted, but it raises far more questions than it answers, doesn’t it? Examples: Has KJ worked closely with the city manager yet and asked if he is interesting in collaborating on these decisions? Has the city manager refused to work with the council and/or KJ for review and feedback on hiring/firing decisions!? Are we at impasse? If so, maybe we should fire the city manager? We haven’t even heard from the city manager on this yet. Why did he fire 8 people without consulting Johnson and/or the council? Reasonable question: Why not just mandate that the city manager must review and get approval for all hiring and firing decisions ? Why not reform the city manager’s position? Where is the debate?

Also, forget the strong mayor thing for a moment… what is the KJ we voted for as weak mayor doing about public safety.. right now.. this next week… this month.. next month. Where is his plan? Where is the money coming from? I voted for a champion of public safety. I want to see more crime statistics about my neighborhood. I want to see full numbers for Q4 and I want to see ALL crimes, not just those going down. THAT is the kind of transparency I want to see. More transparency! Put the police scanner feed on the city web site like many other cities do. Open the gates. Let us know what is REALLY going on in our cities. I know these things can’t be done overnight, but are they ones KJ should be focusing on–since public safety was his “first prioority” and all?

Anyways, KJ’s tv appearances are great. He’s more visible than the previous mayor. But don’t confuse visibility with transparency. They are two VERY different things.

This post is all in the spirit of constructive criticism, and hopefully will give way to more intelligent debate on pros and cons of Johnson’s approach and ideas… and apologies for grammar and spelling issues.. not time for much editing.

In this article I have commented on a few of the mayor’s words, and then shared a letter from a very thought-provoking  email I received today from a friend, vis a vis a gentleman who wishes to remain anonymous. How’s that for a source!

KJ said: “We’re going to have some very difficult days ahead, but we’ll be ready,” he said. “We’re going to tighten up our belts and be very transparent in communicating in very straight-forward ways to the community.”

Two questions Mr. Mayor: 1) Please define transparency for the record, because– as I have found in the case of other words you frequently use– I suspect your definition is not consistent with the denotative one most of us maintain; 2)  When does the transparency begin?

I think these are reasonable questions given the lack of transparency so far. The Bee had to literally pry the adviser list out and fire union “pledge” out of the Johnson camp, didn’t they? Now I am told the petitioners standing outside local supermarkets trying to get signatures for Johnson’s $200,000 push to become strong mayor are not even telling people about the strong mayor portion of the referendum? What transparency. Then there is the reformsacramento.com web site; sorry but is that really a grass roots movement, or a KJ movement with a grass roots storefront?

I’m really trying to stay optimistic, but in my mind, the evidence thus far points to a mayor who is anything BUT transparent. So when does the transparency begin? Just wonderin’

“Johnson was asked if he was worried whether his push for a strong mayor initiative would alienate himself from the rest of the City Council. He said ‘I didn’t run to be popular, I got elected and won by such a large margin that people said, ‘We want change in our community, we don’t want business as usual.’ “

First, KJ’s “I-didn’t-run-to-be-popular” answer to the reporter’s great question is dismissive. He sounds more like an agitated coach blowing off the press in a post game news conference, than the mayor of major city. Actually the more I think about it, KJ sounds more like Kobe used to talk back in his ball hog days. When the press would suggest he was aloof he would say, “I’m not trying to be anyone’s friend. I come to play the game of basketball and everything else is just chatter.”

Difference is: Kobe has changed. His ball hog days seem to be behind him. Apparently he has found the light; he is REALLY playing team ball now and being a true leader by SERVING his team. In his interview with Magic Johnson at halftime during the Christmas Day game (in which the Lakers spanked the Celtics — yay! Sorry Mom) , there was a great moment when Magic asked him what he attributed the 180 degree positive turnaround of the franchise. Kobe didn’t even hesitate. He said, “Having Pau Gasol [excellent Lakers team member] doesn’t hurt,” and he and Magic burst into deep, heartfelt laughter together. If you have followed Kobe’s career you know why he and Magic were laughing so joyfully; both of them are delighted Kobe is developing into the leader Magic was.

Errrr–not that there is any relationship whatsoever between basketball and politics.. or Kobe and Kevin..

Back to KJ. In my experience, a more appropriate response to the question about whether he was concerned about offending the council members (at least from a service-oriented leader) would have been something like: “I respect the council members. They are my colleagues and I am committed to working with them to solve problems. To disrespect them would be to disrespect the residents in their districts who voted for them. We all want the city to succeed, and while I know my strong mayor push  may not be 100% popular at this point, and I recognize it may seem a bit aggressive, I want residents to know I’m committed to negotiating a balanced ballot measure with all stakeholders to ensure there is broad support amongst my colleagues. A win-win is the goal.” Or something as equally sensitive to all the interests at stake.

Outside the fact he dismissed the question, I guess the “I didn’t run to be popular” answer is reasonable–if you’re a drill sergeant.. or a parent.. or George Bush. But the mayor? Really? Since when was popularity (better known by its predominant moniker: APPROVAL RATINGS!!) not critical to elected leaders?  Anyways, I perceive his answer  is defensive and dismissive, and totally unbecoming of a civil servant in a leadership position. I am BAFFLED by it and if I were writing a book and listing the do’s and don’t of leadership communication I would list the “I’m not trying to be popular” response on the TOP of the DON’T list.. in bold. .red.. capitalized.. font.

Then there’s this: Kj said, “I got elected and won by such a large margin that people said ‘We want change in our community, we don’t want business as usual.”  Yes you got elected. Check. Yes you won by a decent margin. Check. Yes we said we wanted changes in our communities (can we just call it by its name “less crime”??). Check. But no, not everyone who voted for you agrees the city council must be essentially usurped and replaced with sovereign leader. In fact Mayor, do you recall the KCRA debates? Remember when John Dahilig asked you how you intended to REBUILD THE BROKEN BRIDGES between some communities and their council people (N Natomas/Tretheway)? Do you remember what you said? You should watch the video and review your response. Your response then does not appear to be congruent with your actions now..

KJ said: “I as an outsider coming in have to be true to the vision I have for the city,” It’s OK that we’re going to disagree on a lot of things and I think that’s fine. But having a good working relationship and agreeing on everything is two different things.”

I don’t have time to dissect this as much as I’d like to, but in short I want to know what in the world he is talking about here. “MY VISION for the city”?  YOUR vision? Before we go firther,  just what  exactly IS your vision for the city ? And more importantly where is your PLAN? I know you want to put the city  on the map. I know you want to bring ESPN Sportzone. I know you want to build near the river. I know you want to fight crime. But where is your PLAN for your vision? (note: Day 1 brochure is NOT a plan).

Come on Kevin. Man you can’t just have an abstract VISION in your head of what you want to do on a Saturday night and expect mom and dad to give you the car keys without any questions! Would you give YOUR kid the keys to the family car if he wouldn’t tell you where he was going?  I mean really, lest we forget you ARE a freshman council member. You are the equivalent of a political teen–aren’t you? (Psssst! It’s ok if you say yes. Don’t worry, most of us expected you to do a lot of on the job training).

“Johnson added he hasn’t personally asked any members of the council to endorse the strong mayor proposal, but that “at the end of the day, I think council will see” the merits of the idea.”

Wow risky. Ok, so this is a good segue to the note I received via email from an anonymous source today. Great commentary here (although I respectfully disagree with several ideas and I bet you can tell which ones

“Sacramento’s new mayor rolled the dice this past week when he announced a campaign to revise the city charter. The changes include stripping the city manager of his authority and giving it to the mayor, in essence creating a strong mayor system similar to many other cities.  Additionally, the charter change would create an independent budget analyst position, similar to the LAO for the State.  I must disclose that I personally support the measures.  Sacramento has a fulltime mayor with fulltime pay, its only proper that they have a fulltime job.  And as for the budget analyst position, I also think it’s a good idea. The city has so many layers of bureaucrats and administrators that do very little; this would at least be a very public position that would receive public scrutiny.  It’s also a position that could benefit every resident of the city and serve as a check for the council and mayor (and Labor Unions).  However the ”go it alone” approach of the mayor has chosen is a dangerous path.

The mayor has increased his political risk unnecessarily and entered a high stakes game of ballot measure roulette.  I say the risk is unnecessary because he could have just as easily built a political coalition to support the measure and demonstrated public support by assembling a task force to hold public meetings.  However he chose to take on the task by himself, not seeking the support of anyone on the council.  Not that he needs their support, but the danger of his strategy obviously lay in the potential for voter rejection so early in his tenure. Should the measure fail it would leave him simply as one of nine votes on the council running a deficit of political capital.  Even potentially more embarrassing (and quite possible) is the measure not qualifying for the ballot at all.  The mayor has only 10 days to collect the estimated 40,000 signatures necessary to qualify the measures for the ballot.  This is no small feat and without a strategic and well coordinated campaign they very well may fall short of their goal.  I attended Mr. Johnson’s Sacramentans’ for Accountable Government meeting last night and was shocked at the apparent lack of strategy to accomplish such a tremendous task.  This campaign looks more like the stumbling campaign of the primary that failed to deliver 50% of the vote, rather than the general election machine that provided a 15% margin of victory.

Mr. Johnson is full of surprises and if anyone can motivate a team of people its him.  But motivation without strategy looks more like anarchy and Mr. Johnson can’t personally collect the signatures he needs.  For the sake of Sacramento I hope Mr. Johnson’s team pulls it together and gets the measure on the ballot and that it passes.  However, should the measure fail, or not even qualify, it will no doubt cost Mayor Johnson some serious political capital. If that happens he will without a doubt get back up and start again, not even stopping to lick his wounds.  If there is a next time, perhaps he’ll take a few political allies along with him.  Of course, if he pulls it off, and never underestimate him, he will become a Sacramento political juggernaut even more so then he already is.”

Th-th-that’s all friends

“I’ve been out of the country and still am for another 5 days, but want to give some thoughts on the Kevin Johnson strong mayor proposal.

I support the idea to have a thoughtful and inclusive community dialogue about amending our city charter and governance structure. However, such changes should not be made wily-nily nor in a vacuum, but rather by engaging our community, and mayor/council.

It would seem a better approach would create a “Charter Reform Commission” to explore ideas and proposals to be considered by the council for voter consideration. Such a citizen body (appointed by the Mayor and Council) could include folks like the League of Women Voters, former City Managers, neighborhood and business representatives, employee organizations, and other stakeholders, etc.

Such an effort was proven successful in cities like Los Angeles in the mid 1990’s when the new Mayor (Riordan) and City Council created a body to explore ideas for their subsequent and successful charter reforms.

In addition, in the late 1990’s this model (of a blue ribbon commission) proved to be successful when then Mayor Joe Serna created a “Campaign Finance Reform Commission”, which met for several months before making recommendations to the City Council for action.

In sum, rather than have a Mayor or a City Council member collect 30,000+ signatures to put his or her top ideas on Charter Reform on the ballot…..a more thoughtful and likely more effective approach would be to engage others through a Mayor/Council appointed Charter Reform Commission. There are plenty was ways to skin this cat…..and ramroding two or three ideas does not seem like an open approach or in the lines of the Sacramento tradition of inclusive government.

Such a Commission could delve into a broad and long need dialogue on issues to be considered including, but not limited to: Mayor/Council Governance, the establishment of a City Ethics Commission, terms limits, a LAO-like independent city budget analyst (which fyi was discussed at council a length a year or so back) etc.”

I like Kevin’s idea of creating a commission to EXPLORE the strong mayor referendum as Mayor Serna did for his Campaign Finance Commission.

Great ideas and commentary, Kevin. Judging from the poll we have conducted here where only 8% of respondents agree with KJ, it appears as though the public is in agreement with you.

Bonus section: From one of my favorite bloggers, Tracy: http://blog-sacramento.blogspot.com. She put together a list of five things the mayor should do right away. This is my favorite:

#5- Meet with the City Council and high ranking City staff. Demand a level of civil discourse and decorum in dealing with the public. KJ needs to show great leadership in how he conducts City Council and other public meetings. He should demand that residents be treated with respect, decency and a thread of compassion. Residents should not be scolded, chastized or publicly embarrassed because the City Council can’t take the heat of their own decisions.