Mayor Kevin Johnson is getting closer to getting it right on his strong-mayor plan.
In a welcome moment of humility and introspection, the mayor on Tuesday allowed that “in hindsight” he could have been more diplomatic in drawing the City Council behind him on a plan to vastly expand the mayor’s power in Sacramento.
He assumed “full responsibility” for the issue becoming so divisive, and says he has listened to colleagues and critics to put together a collaborative proposal.
It would have served him, and the city, much better if he had taken this approach earlier. He could have done so before attempting a ballot initiative after sweeping into office in 2008.
Yet what is done is done. Now the council needs to meet him halfway. Johnson is right about the overarching issue: Cities nationwide have shown that, with stronger authority in the mayor’s office and the right leader, they can tackle festering problems of crime, schools and economic development.
Right now, in Sacramento, neither the city manager nor elected leaders are accountable for the inertia.
Like the council, the mayor should be willing to compromise. He is urging the council to fast-track his plan on to the June 8 ballot, which would force a vote by Feb. 23 – too ambitious a timetable for such momentous changes. Johnson has not made a convincing case why the package can’t wait until November.
The Executive Mayor Version 2.0 he floated Tuesday would vest less power in the mayor than the previous version, yet it would still be a major change.
It calls for letting the mayor veto council actions, submit a budget, and hire and fire the city manager, the assistant city managers and department heads – some 20 top officials in all, compared with hundreds in the initial plan. The council could override vetoes with a two-thirds vote, would get an independent analyst to vet the mayor’s budget, yet would still control the city attorney, clerk, and treasurer.
The mayor is also suggesting, but is not wedded to, term limits for the mayor and council members. He has also joined a call for an independent ethics commission that would investigate allegations of misdeeds within city government. And he proposes to have the entire initiative automatically expire – in eight to 10 years – unless voters make it permanent.
The mayor argues that waiting until November would allow special interests to water down a plan that, at least in part, has been debated for more than a year. Perhaps so, but if the mayor were to rally the council behind his change, it could blunt opposition.
The question now is whether council members will be receptive or vindictive. Sandy Sheedy said Tuesday the city has strong-mayor fatigue. “We just need to let it go,” she said, arguing that the council needs to focus on the budget and other more urgent matters.
That would be a mistake. Johnson and his allies have sparked a needed conversation on mayoral authority, and Sheedy and others should be willing to listen and talk.
If it can put aside personality conflicts, this council could do what others have done nationwide: Find a system of governance that better serves the people of this city.