I am starting to see the signs. They are sprouting in my neighborhood against something called Measure A, which is designed to strengthen the role of the mayor in local government here in Sacramento. One of the signs is in the yard of my councilman, a hardworking public servant with whom I have a long-term friendship and whose views I respect. Other signs are on the lawns of local firefighters, certainly also hardworking public servants. The firefighters union is against Measure A, as is the teacher’s union. I am a member of a teacher’s union myself, though one representing educators in a different school district.
So why am I now planning to get a competing yard sign in favor of Measure A? A big reason is that Measure A requires the City to spend $40 million annually for “inclusive economic development and youth services.” To me, this reads as a sticky kind of commitment to invest in Black and other disadvantaged communities, in South Sacramento and elsewhere. Mayor Steinberg has made no secret of his desire to do just this. I support him in his quest.
But of course, Measure A is not primarily about inclusive economic development. At the core, it is about making Mayor Steinberg and future mayors more powerful in relation to the council and the city manager. And here is where I need to be careful because I so appreciate and admire Darryl Steinberg as a man and as a politician. Former Mayor Kevin Johnson also spent a lot of political capital supporting a strong mayor system, and I had mixed feelings at the time precisely because I never fully trusted Johnson, ambitious and accomplished as he is. Future mayors will not be Mayor Darryl. Nor will they be Mayor Kevin. We need to look at Measure A on the merits.
So what would be the most important changes in the role of the mayor if Measure A were to pass? There are several, which you can review on the City’s website here. But to me, three seem most important. First, the mayor, not the city manager, would become City’s chief executive officer. Second, the mayor would no longer be part of the city council, and the council would expand to nine members, which would in turn require a redrawing of current districts. Third, the mayor would obtain veto authority over most proposed legislation, subject to an override of two-thirds of the council.
None of these three items strike me as a ruthless power grab. What is more, Sacramento’s city manager form of governance definitely strikes me as an antiquated holdover from a progressive tradition that used to be powerful in California but that has seen its day. Here I am not talking about modern progressives, but about the progressive era reformers of a hundred years ago, who sought to reduce corruption in government by turning its functions over to expert civil service managers, boards, and commissions. There were and are good aspects to this ideal of governance by experts, but the downside has always been that experts are not accountable to the popular will, and expert bodies have often proved easy for special interests to capture. Among the most powerful local special interests today are the very firefighters and teachers unions lined up against Measure A (the police union, to its credit, has stayed neutral even though the measure has potential to take away resources that could used in future bargaining).
Mayor Steinberg is in no way an anti-labor guy. In a revealing June 16 Sacramento Bee article, Steinberg was quoted as follows in reference to activists’ attempts to reopen the police union contract, “I would not hold out hope for that prospect … I would not.” I’ve only met Steinberg three times in my life, but this sounds like his voice, the voice of a seasoned and realistic pol, and the voice of someone who understands the deep importance of collective bargaining. For what it’s worth I am also in no way an anti-labor guy. Besides being a proud union member myself, in a former career worked for a union-backed research organization in New York City.
But local firefighters and teachers unions are on the wrong side of this debate. The Sacramento Central Labor Council and SEIU Local 1000 are on the right side. But no matter which side you are on, I think it hard to argue that the fundamental goals of Measure A are not fully correct. The Mayor and his supporters want to redirect more funding to Black and other disadvantaged communities, and that is the right thing. The Mayor and his supporters want to make local government more directly accountable to voters as opposed to an unelected city manager, and that is also the right thing.
Finally, there is that sticky, fundamental issue. In a democracy, elections are supposed to have consequences. If we vote someone in as mayor, we need to let that person lead. People expect the mayor to act as chief executive, and only a small minority of political insiders understand that, under the current system, this is not actually what happens when we vote for mayor in this town. If it turns out the person elected as mayor can’t lead, or if he or she does not have the skills or temperament to be a good chief executive, then we need to vote them out. That is our right and our responsibility. Now more than ever is a time to trust that fundamental democratic impulse.