Back in 1841, not long before Sacramento established its first city charter, a young Bostonian by the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson published an essay titled “Self-Reliance,” and in it he penned these words: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
When it comes to the strong-mayor debate recently roiling the occupants at Sacramento City Hall, never have truer words been written.
Nearly four years ago, back when Heather Fargo was still mayor, I wrote an essay in Sactown magazine calling for a strong-mayor form of government. It was seven months before the mayoral election in November 2008, and even a few weeks before then-candidate Kevin Johnson first publicly announced his interest in pursuing the concept. I had no idea who would win, of course, but I did know one thing this city had long outgrown its archaic weak-mayor system.
The City Council, however, didn’t seem to know that, criticizing the proposal in 2008 and rejecting it in 2009. Wait until 2010 or 2012, they suggested. Give us more time, they asked.
Apparently three or four years wasn’t enough time for them. On Jan. 17, the council outright rejected the mayor’s proposal to put the newly revised strong-mayor plan on the June ballot, and gave only lukewarm support to considering it for the November ballot.
For those not familiar with our current system, in a nutshell, it’s colloquially known as a weak-mayor system, where the mayor has simply one of nine votes on the City Council, but no real powers beyond that, other than running council meetings and representing the city at various civic functions. The council hires a city manager who sets the budget and does the majority of the hiring and firing in City Hall. As a result, the mayor is largely a glorified City Council member, although perhaps with a bit more influence than his council colleagues by virtue of his title.
It’s a system typical of smaller towns, while most big cities have the so-called strong-mayor system.
Unfortunately, we’re still operating more like a small town than a big one. In fact, we’re one of the only major cities in California that hasn’t made the switch. For years, and in some cases decades, the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland and Fresno have all operated under a strong-mayor system.
That leaves Sacramento in the weak-mayor category along with smaller cities such as Stockton, Modesto and Chico, none of which is a fraction of our size or shares the complexity of anchoring a region with 2.2 million residents. A weak-mayor system may very well be right for those cities.
It’s not, however, right for us.
One of the most recent civic converts to the strong-mayor system was Oakland in 2004. Then-Mayor Jerry Brown successfully pushed for the new form of government, arguing that such a system “counterbalances the parochialism of council districts.” Translation: The mayor needs to focus on the interests of the entire city and not get bogged down, for example, by the minutiae of provincial disputes and distractions.
To wit: Not one of the mayors in the above-mentioned big cities regularly attends city council meetings, and with good reason. For example, in the same recent Sacramento City Council meeting where the strong-mayor plan was presented and largely opposed, one agenda item was devoted to discussing a lease extension for the company that washes city vehicles, while another involved approving expenditures on city equipment, including “up to two wood chippers.”
Wood chippers.
This is not what our mayor, or the mayor of any major metropolitan city, should be spending his or her extremely limited and valuable time on. There are significantly larger fish to fry in this city these days public safety, education, economic development and, yes, getting an arena built. Our mayor should have the power to make key decisions without spending months or years trying to build political consensus every single time.
And those who suggest the strong-mayor system is some sort of nefarious “power grab” need to pay closer attention. Contrary to popular belief, a strong mayor can’t do whatever he or she wants. In other cities, protections are put in place where the city council can override the mayor if he or she acts irresponsibly. That would happen here, too.
Amazingly, the one guy in our City Hall who does have real decision-making power similar to a corporate CEO the city manager is not elected by the people. I don’t have anything at all against our new city manager, but in what world does that make sense?
What’s the point of even having a mayor? Think about it. Don’t we all assume that when we elect a mayor, we’re electing someone to run our city? Remarkably, that’s not the case.
It’s no secret that several of our current council members have displayed little interest in releasing even an ounce of additional authority to a guy they perceive as an aggressive, blunt celebrity traits that not all of us see as a bad thing in a mayor. But by allowing their personal animosity for one man stand in the way of this critical civic issue is nothing short of irresponsible given our city’s size and economic climate.
Put simply, the choice to move to a strong-mayor form of government should have nothing to do with Kevin Johnson at all. Whether you’re a City Council member or a citizen, basing that decision on your personal opinion of a single man is precisely the same approach as making the decision whether or not to build an arena based purely on your opinion of a single family, the Maloofs. It’s a deeply flawed and shortsighted premise that only the most insular of us would support. In both cases, we need to be bigger than this. We need to put the city first.
Mayors come and go. But while they are in office, we need to give them the opportunity to do exactly what we elected them to do lead. And not in the symbolic way that a weak-mayor system allows, but by giving them the authority to take action in hope of effecting real and positive change. As a big city that’s facing big problems in a depressed economy, now is not the time for ceremonial leadership.
In many ways, a city is like a business it needs talented people to thrive. But if you can’t attract the best and brightest, how can a city move forward and prosper?
Take note of the extraordinary fact that not one serious candidate has emerged to run against Mayor Johnson. Why is that? Why aren’t there any other local leaders opting to run? One possible reason, of course, is that people think Mayor KJ is doing a great job. The other is that they know how politically hamstrung a Sacramento mayor is. And why would someone with bold ideas and experience as an effective decision-maker want to be mayor here when he or she can’t act boldly or decisively?
Instead, don’t we want to attract people who actually know how to make things happen? People with vision? People who think big? Or do we simply want tentative, consensus-building deliberators?
This city already spends far too much time deliberating and not nearly enough time getting things done. If you look at the economic indicators, it becomes painfully clear that this city has no time to waste. This isn’t Mayberry, folks. We’re the capital of California, and we need to start acting like it.
Sure, there are legitimate disagreements to be worked out when it comes to altering the city charter. But any conversation that doesn’t include a provision increasing the authority and responsibility of the only person in Sacramento whom the people actually elected to lead it is aggressively and, yes, foolishly holding this city back from reaching its full potential. Now is not the time for “little statesmen.”
Last month, council members rebuffed the mayor’s efforts to put his strong-mayor proposal on the June ballot. Let’s hope that when they reconvene to discuss the matter again Tuesday, they can put aside their personal differences with one man, see the bigger picture and give our city a shot at the better future that it deserves.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Rob Turner
is co-editor
of Sactown
magazine. A version of this article appeared in Sactown magazine.