Opinion - League of Women Voters Urges No on Sacramento's Measure L
By Paula Lee, President League of Women Voters Sacramento County | October 13, 2014 Measure L will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot as “The C...
https://www.elkgrovenews.net/2014/10/opinion-league-of-women-voters-urges-no.html
By Paula Lee, President League of Women Voters Sacramento County | October 13, 2014
Measure L will
appear on the Nov. 4 ballot as “The Checks and Balances Act of 2014.”

Proponents say the
city is working well under the current system and Measure L will “just make it
work better.” Better for whom?
Measure L is
not a healthy choice for democracy. It reduces accountability and transparency,
taking us back to the days of politically-run cities, weakening the City
Council and the voice of neighborhoods.
Many successful
council-manager cities larger than Sacramento thrive with a unified system like
ours; they have effective mayors who provide policy direction and vision;
dedicated council members who work with the mayor to establish public policy;
and competent, professionally trained managers to carry out those decisions.
This can sometimes be a slower process; however, building consensus to achieve
the overall best result for the entire city requires leadership, not more
power.
In contrast, a
divided “strong mayor” system is likely to result in policy decisions with
winners and losers. Voters can follow the money in this campaign to see who the
potential winners might be.
We are alarmed that
very large contributors to Measure L from outside our city and state are
investing in a potential bypass of a deliberative body to meet in private with
a mayor who is no longer part of the council and our public process.
Unlike state
government, decisions made at the local level, such as land use and public
services, have direct impacts on our lives. It is important that our governing
body – the mayor and council -- be deliberative, collaborative and represent
the people who live in Sacramento.
Decisions about the
use of public money should be debated in public. If an idea is good, it is
likely to stand the test of council and public scrutiny.
A city manager who
only takes direction from a mayor, who can fire him or her without cause, is
essentially acting as a “chief of staff.” Therefore, city employees could also
be subjected to the politics of the mayor’s office. Sacramento is better served
by a trained professional city manager who works to implement policies of a
mayor and council that represent us. He or she is held accountable every day or
can be removed for poor performance. In contrast, removing a mayor from office
would require a costly recall effort by voters.
Cities using a
council-manager system are more efficient (reported in an IBM study “Smarter,
Faster, Cheaper: An Operations Benchmarking Study of 100 Cities”) because the
city manager is shielded from political influence.
Other transparency
ideas in the Measure L proposal are good, such as “sunshine” and ethics
ordinances. However, none require changing our form of governance and all can
be enacted now.
Sacramento’s future
is bright. We’re moving past the worst recession in 100 years and Mayor Kevin
Johnson has been successful at implementing his vision in the current system.
Many people who share this mayor’s vision agree that Measure L is wrong for
Sacramento. You can like the mayor and vote against this misguided measure.
The League of Women
Voters finds that no convincing evidence or arguments have been made to support
this risky change. We recommend voters keep democracy working in our city. Vote
“no” on Measure L.
Post a Comment