Over the last several years, the conversation over who holds power in the upper echelons of the private sector and government have increasingly focused on the lack of women and people of color. Indeed, the University of California, Davis producedover a decade’s worth of data which shows that about 97% of board-level and CEO positions in the top 400 companies in California are held by men.
Hell, in what is often-considered the most progressive state in the Union, we’ve still never had a female Governor.
I remember becoming particularly interested in this topic when looking at our own city council and realizing that there was just one woman sitting at the dais. After deciding to take a deep dive, in March of 2016 I wrotea piece that looked at the makeup of city boards and commissions, elected offices, and leadership positions within the city.
Of course, it was already clear that we were lacking in elected city positions in terms of gender diversity, but I was surprised to find out – according to the city’s own department leadership diagram – that only about 13 percent of upper management positions were held by women. Also, while the aggregate of boards and commissions were about 40 percent women, the commissions with decision-making power, such as the Planning and Design Commission, were seriously lacking (2 members out of 13).
Due to a lack of data and expertise, my analysis missed a larger question entirely — the intersectionality of ethnicity. The city has made modest strides over time with diversity in elected office;Milton McGhee (elected 1967) was the first African American city council member,Manuel Ferrales (elected 1969) was the first Latino council member, andRobert Matsui (elected 1971) was the first Japanese American council member.
But of course we wonder, where are the women of color? The answer is: not generally in positions of power. Recently, the city decided that needed to change, and while historically it hasn’t meaningfully gathered data on diversity or analyzed who holds the power, it does now.
In April of 2016, Councilmember Angelique Ashby partnered with the research firm McKinsey to determine just what the “diversity deficit” is in Sacramento, and how we might move forward with solutions. That began with aGender Parity Report Card issued out of her office, which not only noted the lack of women in management positions as well as a significant differences in pay (spoiler: women make less than men), but suggested actionable solutions such as hiring a Diversity Manager.
Ultimately, the city decided to move forward with that recommendation and is in the process of hiring forthat position.
That study spurred the call for a city-wideGender and Ethnic Diversity Audit, which was released in July of 2016. As theSacramento Bee pointed out, “the city’s employees – and its Police and Fire departments – are significantly less diverse than the public they serve. In all but two of 17 city departments examined, more than 50 percent of managers are white.”
In a nutshell, we found out there is a lot of work to be done to ensure our city leadership mirrors its population.
Now, fast forward a year and five months, and the cityreleased yet another audit of its ethnic and gender diversity. Overall, the results show that not much progress has been made in the past year and there is still a lot of work to be done, but also that there is significant movement underway.
Via Consulting Group’s Jennifer Manuel, a local business-owner focused on closing the gender pay gap and the Chair of the Women and Girls Advancement Coalition noted in her testimony, “While the audit raises short-term challenges that require immediate attention, our coalition is concerned that the city does not yet have a comprehensive plan to address gender and racial disparities over the long-term. The audit shows us that we must take action to move beyond reporting and begin to design solutions – including the need to start with the proper classification of all City employees”
After going on to discuss the actionable ways the city can make progress now while we wait for the hiring of a Diversity Manager, including bringing together a broader coalition of stakeholders into the process, she went on to say, “we see this as a major step forward to achieve pay equity for women from all backgrounds, people of color, and LGBTQ employees.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Activist and board member for the Fem Dems of Sacramento, Mary McCune, wrote to the city, “The Fem Dems look forward to how City Council uses the most recent audit to determine its next steps towards creating a city workforce that welcomes and uplifts all members of the community and offers its support and expertise whenever possible.”
And the last speaker, Nicolina Hernandez, who is not only a newly appointed Latina woman to the Planning and Design Commission, but a member of the Mayor’s working group on Sacramento’s future economic growth, left it on the perfect note. “I agree that this is a very bold move that the city is undertaking, and I see that this audit has shed light on areas where the city can embrace policies and practices to increase diversity,” Hernandez stated. “I commend everyone who has participated in these discussions.”
Indeed, while things may not have moved as quickly as some hoped, I have to say I couldn’t be more proud to live in a city that prioritizes equity for all and is willing to take a good, hard look at itself to make that happen.
This is progress.
So, how can you get involved?
If you or someone you know would be a great fit for the Diversity Manager position, apply here.
Find out who your city council member is here, and send your feedback.
This post is a continuation of the story of Luella Johnston, Sacramento (and California’s) first elected councilwoman. In Part I, I discussed Luella’s civic and political activism in Sacramento, culminating in her successful 1912 campaign for a seat on the Sacramento City Council. In Part II, I discussed her time on the City Council, then called the City Commission. In this third and final part, I discuss her re-election campaign and later years.
Luella Johnston Campaign Headshot (circa 1912)
Luella Johnston should have been riding high entering into the 1913 campaign season. On the power of the women’s vote in the 1912 election, the anti-corporate Progressives had won every seat of the five-member City Commission governing Sacramento. As part of that wave of reform, Luella was voted into office – the first woman elected to municipal office in California’s history.
In just one year, the reformers had also delivered on much of their agenda. Cronyism seemed to have been reined in. The mighty railcar and utility companies were subjected to greater regulation and rate controls, reducing costs for everyday Sacramentans. And the Commission had proposed and the voters passed several major infrastructure modernization projects, including a levee protection bond that Luella had championed as a candidate.
As the first of her peers to face re-election, Luella was the standard-bearer of the revolution. Luella, proclaimed the Sacramento Bee, “represents the reform and progressive movement which has done so much for the municipality.”
And yet. Despite these successes, Luella’s campaign must have launched with a sense of foreboding.
Sexism would pose an even greater threat in re-election. In 1912 she had won the last of five open seats on the Commission. In 1913, hers was the only seat at issue. “At an election where only one is to be elected,” fretted one of her female supporters, “all the chances favor the election of a man.”
She had also made enemies of some very powerful interests. Early in her 1912 term, she was warned that “if you continue your present course we will see that you stand no chance of re-election.” Nevertheless, she persisted.
That looming threat became very real when the old Political Machine put forth its challenger.
The Machine Strikes Back: Enter E. J. Carraghar
Cartoon of Carraghar, Sacramento Bee (1913)
Edward J. Carraghar was, only one year prior, perhaps the most powerful man in Sacramento. A councilmember until the new charter went into effect in 1912, he was widely seen as the power behind Mayor Beard’s throne in the old City Hall. Under his rule the Southern Pacific, Pacific Gas & Electric, and the city’s public service corporations generally received favorable treatment; they bolstered his reign in return. Carraghar was local Progressives’ bête noire: the “champion,” editorialized the Bee, “of the Machine, the public-service corporations, and the reactionary elements generally.”
If Carraghar won, it would be, the Bee warned, “the opening wedge for the government of this city again by the old crowd. It would herald the beginning of the return to the old condition of Machine and corporation rule.”
Carraghar’s challenge was also personal. In 1912, Luella had terminated his tenure in elective office by narrowly besting him for the last seat on the Commission.
1913 was the rematch. 1913 was the counter-revolution.
The 1913 Campaign: Nasty, Brutish, & Short
Sacramento Union (1913)
Luella came out of the gate with several important endorsements. The Municipal Voters League, the city’s leading Progressive organization, voted overwhelmingly to support her candidacy. The Bee, too, was amongst her most vocal supporters. Luella, the paper wrote, had been “on the right side and for The People, as against corporate selfishness, graft and improper discrimination.” Finally, the Woman’s Council, that powerful coalition of women’s organizations that Luella had founded almost a decade ago, also pledged its full support: “the women of Sacramento,” declared the Council, “as citizens, voters and taxpayers have a legal and moral right to a representative of their own sex in the city government.”
With her indefatigable style, Luella re-constituted a Women’s Precinct Organization to lead her campaign. She campaigned hard not only on her Progressive bona fides, but also her accomplishments as Commissioner of Education, where she had closed a budget shortfall, addressed student overcrowding, and inaugurated several new children’s parks. It must have been quite the sight, at that time, to see a woman campaigning on her executive and legislative experience. At one campaign stump speech in Oak Park, where Luella had recently inaugurated a new, modern playground, women of the neighborhood reportedly showered her with “three minutes of bouquets of roses.”
But Carraghar was nothing if not a shrewd and battle-tested campaigner. He punched back, hard, hitting Luella wherever she was strongest. “Every trick that political ingenuity can conceive is being used against Mrs. Johnston,” criticized the Bee. “No appeal to prejudice is too base, no lie too brazen, to be rejected in an effort by the old Machine to confuse voters.”
If the Bee was exaggerating, it could only have been by a hair. Time and again the Carraghar camp peddled bald falsehoods to the electorate. For example:
As a Commissioner, Luella was a consistent vote to regulate the public service corporations whereas Carraghar, as Councilmember, had cut deals favorable to the Southern Pacific and other corporations. In spite of these contrasting histories, his campaign surrogates praised Carraghar as the anti-corporate candidate.
Luella was an ardent anti-saloon campaigner. Her first political fight was winning a moratorium on new saloons in residential areas. In stark contrast, Carraghar was, himself, a tavern owner. Yet, Carraghar allies implausibly insisted that the “liquor interests” were supporting Luella.
And the harshest blow of all: Luella was a suffragette, endorsed by the Woman’s Council, and the first woman elected to city office in Sacramento. To counteract this base of support, his camp orchestrated a “Woman’s E. J. Carraghar Club,” which attacked the legitimacy of Luella’s Woman’s Council’s endorsement and warned other women not to be seen as “voting for a woman because she is a woman.”
If the city’s corporations and old power brokers had underestimated the Progressive challenge in 1912, they were not set to repeat that mistake in 1913. According to contemporary accounts, whereas Luella’s was a volunteer-powered campaign, Carraghar’s was backed by “great sums of money,” widely assumed to come from the coffers of the public service corporations.
Unfortunately, Luella herself made a few blunders that her opponent was quick to seize upon. At one point, according to a pro-Carraghar publication, Luella took “an army of small boys away from their studies to distribute anti-Carraghar literature, during school hours.” She also failed to appoint a prominent parks advocate, Mrs. J. Miller, to the parks board, causing a nasty rift within her base in the women’s clubs.
When the Election Day finally arrived, it was a rout: Luella was soundly defeated in every precinct except for the annexed residential neighborhoods.
She took the defeat well, reportedly with a smile on her face as she shook the hands of hundreds of supporters. “When I leave this position,” she said, “it will be with the thought that I have given my best efforts to the city in the limited term of office that I served.”
Three months after Luella’s term officially expired, her former colleagues voted to make her the city’s Truant Officer, responsible for boosting school attendance. Outnumbered for now, Commissioner Carraghar cast a solitary, spiteful protest vote against his former opponent “on the ground that a man should fill the position.”
Progressives still controlled four of the Commission’s five seats, but the 1913 campaign was a dark omen for reformers. The old Machine had proven it was not yet vanquished; it was fighting back.
A Ghost Arises: The 1914 Campaign
Sacramento Bee (1914)
As the city campaign draws to a close, there is heard on the air a sound suspiciously like the rustle of grave clothes. Those bosses whom the people thought had been laid to rest for their long sleep, breaking the bonds that held them, in spectral shape again appear among the living.
Sacramento Union (1914)
Reformers and boss revanchists were set to collide again in 1914, but with even higher stakes. Due to an early resignation on the Commission, two seats instead of one were up for election. Progressive control of the Commission, won a scant two years earlier, was now in jeopardy.
Carraghar pounced. “Give me a man – no, give me two,” he told a meeting of businessmen, “that I may once more get in the saddle and work in your interests.” He was not subtle. “The men who once dictated the politics of Sacramento,” warned the Union, “that unwholesome crew of bosses, are trying to patch up the Machine.”
Emboldened by Luella’s defeat the year before, Sacramento’s business interests could not have been more eager to help.
Long used to a pliant city government, Sacramento’s corporate titans chafed under Commission rule. Dr. E. M. Wilder, the staunchly anti-corporate Commissioner of Public Works up for re-election that year, had emerged as their chief antagonist. He had ordered the Southern Pacific to tear out an unlawfully-constructed rail line, strong-armed the railroad into improving the city’s levees, and cleared the SP out of its prime staging area at the wharfs. He had used his commissionership to undermine Pacific Gas & Electric’s electrical distribution and streetcar monopolies while openly campaigning for full municipal ownership of both. He was the anti-Carraghar.
Completing the good government ticket was O.H. Miller, a prominent developer, who ran for the open Commission seat pledging himself to Wilder’s platform.
Carraghar and his allies put forward their own “Machine” ticket: Thomas Coulter, a hop grower and realty dealer, and Dr. Frederick E. Shaw, a civically-active physician. While never publicly admitted, Coulter and Shaw were generally seen as supported, per the Bee, by the full “power, influence, and money of the Southern Pacific, the Pacific Gas and Electric and other selfish public-service corporations.”
What is beyond dispute is that someone spent heavily to defeat Wilder-Miller, even more than was spent to defeat Luella. “Never before was known such lavish scattering of coin in a Sacramento election,” wrote the Sacramento Bee. Thousands of placards, hundreds of canvassers, and even a few brass bands were trumpeting the Machine candidates. The Sacramento Union estimated at one point that thousands had been spent on the 1914 campaign. (In contrast, Luella only spent $10 on her 1912 campaign.)
When the dust of the election settled, the Machine had once again triumphed. Commissioner Wilder took the loss less gamely than Luella: “It was announced two years ago by the leaders of the old gang in this city that they would get me when my time came and they have indeed done so.” Sacramento’s Progressive revolution was over.
One of the new Commission majority’s first acts: firing Luella Johnston.
Within a few years’ time many of the Commission’s 1912-13 Progressive reforms were undercut or undone. The civil service commission was defunded; health and safety ordinances, including the city’s liquor laws, went unenforced; and regulation of the city’s public service corporations, and chiefly the Southern Pacific and Pacific Gas & Electric, were once again relaxed. By the end of the 1910s, writes local historian William Burg, City Hall had descended “to even worse corruption than under Mayor Beard.”
The Commission model, which had started with such promise, was scrapped by voters in 1921 and replaced with the latest trend in municipal governance: the City Manager form of government we have today.
Luella, in her 90s, from Woman’s Council: Silhouette of Service (1955)
Luella quickly bounced back from the Machine’s retribution. Months later, a rare sister-in-politics, Sacramento County’s elected Superintendent of Schools Carolyn Webb, appointed Luella Deputy Superintendent. The assignment was short-lived. Less than a year later, in 1915, Luella would resign in protest over the county pressuring her to take a pay cut to free up funds to hire an additional employee.
In her mid-fifties now, Luella finally seemed content to return to private life. Her name fades from the historical record at this point. From the social notes pages of local newspapers, we know she remained active with both the Tuesday Club and the Woman’s Council, but not leading grand initiatives like she did in earlier years.
Luella working on her book – Sacramento Bee (1953)
Luella’s passion for public service and education never left her, however. In her twilight years she devoted herself to writing a book to help new immigrants learn English. Tentatively entitled American Folklore, she hoped it would spark a love of reading, particularly for newspapers and magazines. “The most vital thing for any newcomer to this land,” she explained, at age 92, “is to introduce him to the newspapers at the earliest possible moment. Particularly, so he can read about the food that he eats and the clothing he wears.”
She passed away in 1958, age 97, her book unfinished.
Sacramento Bee Obituary (1958)
Luella’s Signature (1901)
Luella Johnston played a central role in the social, cultural, and political development of early twentieth century Sacramento. It’s almost overwhelming to describe. She led to prominence the Tuesday Club, which would endure as Sacramento’s premier women’s social club for almost a century. She founded the Woman’s Council, which for decades gave women a seat at the table in making and passing municipal public policy. She was an early education reformer whose successes from the 1900s and 1910s, wrote the Sacramento Union in 1948, still remained decades later “as monuments to the efforts of one frail woman who probably never weighed 100 pounds in her life.” She was integral to the rise of the City’s Progressive moment, which, although short-lived, produced infrastructure improvements (like the Yolo Bypass) and policies (like municipal ownership of electrical distribution, which decades later would evolve into SMUD) that live with us today. She was a crusader for women’s rights in a hostile era and earned the laurel of being the first woman elected to municipal office in California. (And, quite possibly, of any major city in the United States.)
Her accomplishments seem to be too many for a single life.
Sadly, as far as I am aware, there are no memorials to Luella in Sacramento. Neither Johnston Park, Community Center, Pool, nor Road refer to Luella Johnston, but rather to Carl Johnston – an unrelated, early North Sacramento developer. The most I have found honoring her is a small (and sadly inaccurate – her 1913 election was the first in which California women could vote) plaque at her gravesite in the Old City Cemetery.
Old Cemetery Plaque
I can’t help but feel that is a serious oversight. It’s important to honor the city heroes who helped make Sacramento what it is today, lest they be forgotten, like Luella. It’s also important to correct omissions regarding women’s accomplishments, which are sometimes overlooked or minimized in history books.
Imagine for a moment if the Old City Council chambers where she used to serve, today nameless, were re-christened the Luella Johnston Council Chambers. In the march for gender equality, so relevant in the news today, I think it would be a beautiful reminder of how far we’ve come and how far we’ve yet to go.
In putting together this account of early 1910s Sacramento political history, Luella’s last campaign, and her later years, I drew heavily on, and am indebted to, the following sources:
Sacramento makes a lot of fantastic beer! Just check out the lineup offered at my local Nugget (and thank them for offering a particularly good selection of local craft beers). While Sacramentality’s loyal readers will recall, our region is far from the biggest brewing region in the state, it has been the fastest growing over the last five years, taking a 5x multiplier to its 2011 size.
Sacramento’s brewing scene has gone through some difficult times over the 15 years we have data from the Board of Equalization (Thanks again, BOE!). Production was flat through the onset of the recession, when the closure of two of the region’s largest breweries saw production decline dramatically, even as craft beer continued to grow across the state and nationally. Production increased slowly through the recession but has caught fire since 2013.
The Old Faithful
In 2016, seven breweries remained from the first few years of the 21st century. Sudwerk has grown slowly, but unevenly over the last decade. It became the largest brewery in the region in 2007, when Sacramento Brewing Co. began its decline, despite seeing no growth over the previous year. It fell from the top spot in 2014 after Knee Deep opened their Auburn facility. In 2016 they fell to third behind Track 7 and Berryessa may soon be nipping at their heels.
Rubicon saw several years of steady, but limited growth in the years of Sacramento Brewing’s collapse and closure, doubling from 34 thousand to 68 thousand gallons between 2006 and 2012. Production would double again over the next three years with the new brewery in place, but with little growth in 2016, it was falling well short of the planned 10x pace, leaving it destined for a duplicate appearance in our next section.
Jack Russell and Hoppy are about the same mid-size breweries they were in 2002 while the other five began and remain tiny as well.
The Dearly Departed
Prior to the recession, production in our region was dominated by Sudwerk, Sacramento Brewing Company, Beermann’s Brewerks and Brew It Up. At their peak, these four collectively produced about three quarters of Sacramento’s local beer between 2003 and 2005. Of those four, only Sudwerk still exists. While Rubicon was smaller at the time, they grew significantly in the vacuum the larger breweries left behind, but called it quits in 2017. Similarly, American River grew relatively quickly in the New Wave, but also shut their doors last year. Brew It Up has been revived across the river in YOLO County, so perhaps we have not all enjoyed our last Monkey Knife Fight?
The New Wave
Auburn Alehouse was the first of the New Wave, opening in 2007. As something of a tweener, they opened their doors just before the string of major closures in 2009. They grew slowly for the first several years, before significantly increasing distribution in more recent years, growing to 87 thousand gallons in 2015, before declining slightly in 2016, leaving them well behind the biggest producers, but still the sixth largest brewery in the region.
With an economy in shambles and the region’s brewing scene crashing, it was no surprise that no new breweries of significance opened over the next three years. 2011, however, would prove to be the beginning of something very big. That spring Knee Deep began brewing in the old Beermann’s location. Starting with a respectable 26 thousand gallons, they would double in 2012 and, after reaching capacity at their original location and after beginning to level off in 2013, moved to their new brewery in Auburn. The new facility allowed a tripling of production in 2014, doubling that in 2015 and increasing again by nearly one-third in 2016.
Track 7 got off to a slower start. They did not begin production until the very end of 2011 (leading to their annual New Year’s Eve anniversary parties) and grew more slowly within the confines of their Curtis Park location. Since opening their larger Natomas production facility in 2015, however, Track 7 has been catching up quickly.
2011 also saw Loomis Basin and Berryessa open their doors. Loomis Basin started larger and tripled in size by 2016, becoming the seventh largest brewery in the region.
Berryessa started smaller, in the tiny Winters market, but took off starting in 2013, passing Loomis Basin in 2015 and Auburn Alehouse in 2016, reaching the fifth spot. An early look at 2017 data suggests they have continued to grow quickly.
The next few years were not only been categorized by the growth of its biggest players, but also an explosion in the number of breweries producing craft beer, nearly tripling over the last five years. Perhaps most notable is the growth in that juicy middle of the local market. In 2016, the nineteen breweries producing between 10 and 40 thousand gallons collectively account for one quarter of the market (with New Glory, Bike Dog and New Helvetia at the high end and Monks Cellar, Jack Rabbit and Mraz at the low end), providing a substantial, highly localized cornerstone of the market – and the kind of competition that can drive delicious innovation across the region. Nearly all of these breweries opened their doors in 2012 or later, offering the real possibility that many of them could follow the paths of the older, bigger brewers in the new wave.
I’ve seen our local mid-sized breweries employ two primary strategies to significantly push past their tap room-generated demand.
While nearly all breweries have limited release specialty and one-off beers they produce, some take this to a much more extreme, social media-fueled level. Visitors to New Glory in Sacramento or Moonraker in Auburn will rarely see the same beer again. While they both have a number of excellent, highly regarded beers, they only brew any given variety occasionally. When their most popular beers roll off the canning line, the most enthusiastic beer fans show up sometimes hours before the breweries open to ensure they get their share. Flatland in Elk Grove takes it further, literally never serving the same beer twice.
By creating the perception of scarcity and making each release feel like a “can’t miss” event, they help to create a buzz around their best beers and ensure that newer experiments will sell, even if they don’t live up to the reputation of their cousins.
The second approach worked very well for Track 7, but disastrously for Rubicon. If a main component of your business is operating a dedicated retail establishment to sell the product in a local market, adding more locations in more markets gives breweries the opportunity to sell more beer at much higher margins than when a distributor gets involved. Track 7 grew up as the local brewery in the relatively small Curtis Park market, but by adding their second location, they became the go-to brewery for the much larger Natomas community. Rubicon’s new West Sacramento location was likewise opening an untapped market (although the tap room opened later than the attached production facility, perhaps letting their new West Sacramento competition get too strong of a toehold in the community). While new markets offer the promise of long term stability, beyond the whims of offering the hot product on social media, it also means substantial capital investment; disappointing returns, as Rubicon experienced, could be disastrous.
Both of these earlier examples sought to double down on their investment, not just opening a second retail location, but also substantially expanded production capacity in the new location, increasing the potential for growth, the cost and the risk. The investment saw Track 7 take off, growing from a local tap room to a major regional player in just two years, while Rubicon was left with a bill it lacked the consistent revenue stream to pay down. Today, others are taking a more limited approach. Bike Dog added a new tap room just two miles from their West Sacramento brewery. The river and its unfortunate lack of bridges (a future article?), however, makes the few hundred feet between West Sacramento and West Broadway a veritable chasm. Going even further, Device is tripling down, adding Midtown and Pocket locations to their business. Their experience will be interesting to watch, as they are both going head-to-head with numerous breweries and bars in Midtown’s busy market, while also becoming the only brewery on the I-5 corridor between Broadway and Elk Grove with over two miles to the nearest bar in the Pocket. Here in the Pocket, we are excited to have them and rooting for their success!
Going beyond the local markets and becoming the kind of breweries that add their region to the state’s leaders will take something more, however. When you look down the list of the state’s top craft breweries, you see:
Sierra Nevada, whose generous use of cascade hops came to define the west coast style and their classic pale ale remains California’s go-to craft beer decades later;
Stone, whose arrogant gargoyles were at the forefront of giving packaging real personality and who made big, high alcohol, high flavor beers the driving force of west coast craft brewing through the beginning of the 21st century;
Lagunitas, who took that full flavor, high alcohol form and reproduced it at a more consumer-friendly price point; and
Ballast Point, whose Grapefruit Sculpin caught the big wave of fruity IPA’s and rode it to near perfection.
If one of our fantastic breweries is going to make that leap, it will probably take a genre-defining effort. Perhaps Moonraker will be able to leverage their reputation for truly fantastic hazy IPAs (and a recently announced brewery expansion) and make Auburn the west coast’s New-New England if the “haze craze” spreads to mainstream markets. Or if the market for subtle but flavorful craft lagers expands (making so many brewers’ dreams comes true), Sactown Union’s focus and talents in that area could pay huge dividends – or perhaps Sudwerk’s established market share and capacity will give them the edge. Maybe our talented and creative brewers may dream up something I could not even imagine that will set the beer world on fire. Or maybe the future of craft brewing will revert back to a more local focus, leaving the larger breweries struggling for market share as consumers seek out their favorite local flavors.
No matter way the market goes, I suspect our very last chart of the article will change substantially over the next several years – and I cannot wait to taste it – or to write about it. You can look forward to the next article in the Look Who’s Brewing series this summer when 2017’s data is released.
With the close of 2017, we here at Sacramentality have our first full year in the books! We published 22 posts in our inaugural year, covering everything from trees to sports to parking to the Simpsons. I’ve picked out a few of my favorites below to celebrate our first year and whet your appetite for 2018.
But first, thank you to all of our readers for joining us in indulging in a little local pride, public policy, and history. We hope you enjoyed reading these posts as much as we enjoyed writing them.
Now, without further ado, here are a few of Sacramentality’s greatest hits of 2017!
In terms of unique views, Sacramentality’s most popular post of the year – by far – was Devin’s post on Big Beer vs. Sacramento’s Microbrews, aptly titled Whazzuuuup with Budweiser’s Attack on Sacramento Brewing? Delicious local beers! A David vs. Goliath story! Graphs! Truly, what’s not to like?
The post pairs nicely with New Helvetia’s (916) Pale Ale.
Our first post, on the City’s AirBNB ordinance, was our biggest scoop of the year. We were the first to break the story that fewer than 5% of AirBNB hosts had registered with the City— at a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenues per year.
The City took one of our suggestions – that AirBNB should be forced to automatically collect the tax instead of putting the onus on mom-and-pop hosts to self-report – but sadly ignored another – that these revenues should be set aside to help with the housing crisis.
Caity wrote one of our most comprehensive (and entertaining!) posts of the year: an overview of the 100+ invisible special districts that make life livable in Sacramento County. The post even earned a share from the Special Districts Association.
Don’t know what a reclamation district is? Not sure if you should care what a reclamation district is? Click above to find out!
I authored the post that probably ruffled the most moustaches. Responding to my call for Sacramento to pick a new official flag, 10% of you furiously typed “outrageous!” while the other 90% of you scratched your heads and asked “Sacramento has a flag?”
For the record, I still think we can do better. (Maybe in 2018?)
Nicest Original Photography
Another favorite post was Katie’s walking tour of four Sacramento neighborhoods – from McKinley Park to R Street. The post highlights some gems even locals may have missed and includes postcard-worthy photos of neighborhood landmarks.
Isn’t one of your New Year’s Resolutions to walk more?
To 2018 and Beyond…
That’s it for our brief year in review! We’ll see you next week with new posts…
Craft beer is booming in Sacramento, California and the nation! According to the Brewer’s Association, craft beer has grown to 4.2 times its 2004 size in the ensuing twelve years. Board of Equalization data acquired by Sacramentality shows that California was ahead of the curve so has grown a little slower to 3.5 times its size, although that drops to 2.7 times if breweries recently purchased by macro conglomerates are omitted.
Sacramento (represented by a Kings flag, both because the current flag needs replacing and because the data represents the metropolitan area, not just the city) was hit hard by the recession, dropping to 2/3 its 2004 size by 2009 and growing slowly through 2013, but has exploded since, more than tripling in the last four years. We will delve deeper into the local brewing numbers in a subsequent piece, but the decline was caused almost entirely by Sacramento Brewing Company’s descent into oblivion.
Craft brewers are not the only ones brewing in California. Driving over the causeway, you’ll see a prominent billboard with the good folks of Anheuser-Busch pointing out that Bud Light, despite its strong association with St. Louis, MO is brewed in California.
Perusing Board of Equalization data, we see that this is true. Very, very true.
Most (56%!) of the beer accounted for in the Board of Equalization Beer Manufacturer Tax Reports (provided graciously by BOE staff, thank you for that) was brewed by the good folks at everyone’s favorite Belgo-Brazilian mega-conglomerate, Anheuser-Busch InBev. Add in South African-Canadian-American mega-brewer, MillerCoors and the macro brewers collectively top 80 percent of California’s locally produced beer. Budweiser tops 400 million gallons, while MillerCoors hovers around 190 million gallons. While the macro brewers continue to dominate the shelves, their numbers have been slipping, leading the big guys to take a ‘if you can’t beat’em, join’em’ approach.
Coming in third is California’s largest craft brewery (and, coincidentally, the nation’s third largest – behind Yuengling and Boston Brewing), Sierra Nevada. At 34 million gallons, Chico’s finest accounts for nearly five percent of California’s beer, nearly as much as the next three, Lagunitas (14.6 M), Ballast Point (12.2 M) and Stone (11.8 M), combined. Firestone Walker (11.5 M) rounds out the top group. There’s a large jump to the next group of breweries, with fourteen totaling between one and four million gallons (Anchor, Gallo, Bear Republic, Green Flash, Gordon Biersch, Lost Coast, North Coast, Golden Road, 21st Amendment, Anderson Valley, Karl Strauss, Coronado, Pizza Port and Hangar 24).
These seventeen breweries collectively account for 96.5 percent of California’s brewing. The remaining 600 plus breweries total less than Sierra Nevada brews alone.
With so much of California’s craft brewing consolidated in a handful of its largest breweries, it is not surprising that its brewing is largely consolidated in five regions:
Northern California: over 80 percent of which is produced by Sierra Nevada
San Diego: two-thirds by Stone and Ballast Point
North Bay: nearly 80 percent by Lagunitas
Central Coast: nearly 90 percent by Firestone Walker
Bay Area: two-thirds by 21st Amendment, Anchor and Gordon Biersch
Today, Sacramento remains among the smaller brewing regions, but that may soon change. Our region has been the fastest growing since 2011, increasing production by more than five times over. Check back in a few weeks and we will delve into and celebrate the enormous growth Sacramento’s brewing scene has experienced the last several years. With great breweries like Moonraker, New Glory, New Helvetia & Mraz continuing to push the envelope, an expansion announced by Device, recent newcomers including Flatland and Claimstake beginning to tickle our taste buds, highly anticipated openings in the New Year in Urban Roots and Moksa and larger, established breweries like Track 7 and Knee Deep, I think we can all agree that Sacramento’s brewing scene is Flippin’ Good!
From where your body can be buried to how we fend off those pesky mosquitoes, the County of Sacramento has over 100 special districts serving your needs that you never knew you didn’t care about. But that’s what we’re here for.
So, what even is a special district? According to the California Special Districts Association (yes, there truly is an association for everything), “Special districts are a form of local government created by a local community to meet a specific need…nearly 85% of California’s special districts perform a single function such as sewage, water, fire protection, pest abatement or cemetery management.” Some exist to provide services consolidated over multiple jurisdictions. Most provide services in unincorporated areas that are typically provided by cities.
Today I’ll be taking you on a trip through all of the types of special districts provided to us.
Do you ever wonder who makes sure the air we breathe is not toxic, filled with pollutants, or just downright smelly? Yeah, me neither.
But as it turns out, Sacramento County has it’s very own Metropolitan Air Quality Management District that does just that. This 14-member board, first created in 1959 by the County Board of Supervisors, develops plans and regulations, monitors air quality, enforces on the bad actors, provides incentives to clean up pollution, and reviews land and transportation projects for their impact on air quality. That board consists of all five Sacramento County Supervisors, four members of the Sacramento City Council, one member each from the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom and Rancho Cordova, and one member representing the cities of Galt and Isleton.They meet the 4th Thursday of every month at 9:30 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers if you ever want to pop by for a visit.
Now, that’s a breath of fresh air.
People die. It’s a fact of life, ironically. While whether we live or die is not up to us, how we choose to lay our dead to rest, is.
Fun macabre fact of the day: Sacramento County has four different cemetery districts to serve your burial needs. These appointed boards manage the day-to-day operations of cemeteries, and some are quite old. For instance, the Fair Oaks Cemetery was first created in 1903. Though burial privileges are limited to current or former district residents/taxpayers or former residents/taxpayers that purchased lots or plots while they were taxpayers/residents, family members of those eligible for burial and veterans are still allowed. Also, if you’re strapped for cash, the County can foot the bill of burial.
The Elk Grove-Cosumnes Cemetery District, founded in 1949, meets every 2nd Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the District Office. The Fair Oaks Cemetery District, founded in 1926 meets every 2nd Wednesday of the month at 9:15am in the District Office. The Galt-Arno Cemetery District, founded in 1949, meets every 4th Wednesday of the month at 3:00 p.m. in the District Office; and the Sylvan Cemetery District, founded in 1926, meets every 2nd Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Cemetery Office. Drop by and give them a visit next time you’re around the cemetery.
Side note: this may seem unintuitive, but the Sacramento Historic City Cemetery is in fact NOT a special district, but a city park. While folks are still able to bury their loved ones there, it’s only in existing familial plots.
When it rains, it pours, but is your County equipped to deal with that excess water? You better believe Sacramento is.
Our very own Drainage Districts, housed under the Stormwater Utility, provide drainage and flood control services. While this may not seem like a huge priority in a place where rain can be scarce, all you need to do is take one look at how many feet of water we would be under if our floodplains systems, like Natomas, failed. Pretty serious stuff. These districts maintain and operate water channels, drainage pipes, investigate systems and design problems, develop programs to reduce pollutants in drainage, and manage regional flood control projects, among other important tasks. This is often done in tandem with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA).
This seems particularly relevant given recent fires that have ravaged other parts of California. We are fortunate to be protected from flames by the fire departments of the cities of Sacramento and Folsom, as well as eleven Fire Protection Districts. While fire protection has been a necessity since man first harnessed its power to burn stuff, coordination of services has taken a convoluted path to get to where it is today.
Back in the day, just a short seventy or so years ago, fires were fought primarily on a volunteer basis. While some fire districts started forming, such as Galt in 1921 and North Highlands in 1951, there still wasn’t a great need for sophisticated coordination across the county. As the need became more pronounced, several studies conducted in 1968, 1972, 1977, and 1981, helped determine how to best manage the myriad districts with outdated and weird boundaries. Alas, through a very long series of consolidations, we have the advanced fire protection system we know today. What a day to be alive.
This is a no-brainer. If you live in Sacramento, you’re likely writing checks for gas and/or electricity to one of these each month. That’s right, good old Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).
According to the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the Sacramento PG&E district was established in 1917, is governed by a board of directors, and is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Now, that’s a lot of bosses.
SMUD was founded just a few years later in 1923, and is governed by a 7-member board of directors that are elected during the November General Election. Come say “hi” at their next board meeting held on the 1st Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m. and the 3rd Thursday of every month at 9:00 a.m. in the SMUD Headquarters Building.
Joint Powers And More
As you know, things are usually done better when people work together. While governments don’t always do this well, they can make a big impact when they do.
Sacramento has several Joint Powers Agencies(JPA), which are entities that formed so that two or more entities can work together to do similar things, and play nice in the figurative government sandbox. These include waste management and recycling, employment and training, housing and redevelopment, public libraries, and transit, among others.
Here’s a list of JPA’s and other authorities for you:
Oh yes, the bane of my existence. Aside from being possibly the most annoying creature on the planet, mosquitoes can also put our lives at risk. In fact, mosquitoes are considered one of the more dangerous creatures on the planet because of their ability to spread deadly diseases, including Zika Virus, Malaria, West Nile Virus, and Yellow Fever. No, thank you.
Luckily for us, the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, founded in 1946, is here to ensure we’re not victims of mosquito-borne illnesses. This district is governed by a 13-member board of trustees which are appointed by the legislative bodies in Woodland, Winters, Sacramento, Isleton, Davis, Galt, Folsom, Citrus Heights, West Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento and Yolo Counties.
Parks and Recreation
Who doesn’t love to recreate? I sure do. I enjoy spending my summers paddle boarding on Lake Natoma, riding on the American River Parkway, and hiking around on my favorite local trails.
If you’re like me and never wondered who the heck manages all of the outdoor spaces we love, then you’d probably be surprised to find out that it is done by five different types of governmental entities: dependent park districts, independent park districts, county service areas, cities, and the County Regional Park System. Some are quite small, such as the Arden Manor Recreation and Park District which only spans one square mile, while others like the City of Sacramento park and community services department encompasses ninety-four square miles. Dang, that’s a lot of recreation.
Yeah, I thought the same thing when I read “Reclamation District”…what the heck is that? As it turns out, these districts are the oldest in Sacramento County. Most were formed prior to 1900, and some are over one hundred years old. That’s a trip.
These districts were created to maintain and reclaim land threatened by flooding, and use it for the purposes of agriculture, residential, commercial, or industrial use. Beginning around 1864, large parts of the Delta region were reclaimed by land investors and over the course of about 30 years, turned the region into one of the most rich agricultural areas in California. While it’s difficult to know just how many reclamation districts exist because historically little reporting has been required, there are eighty-four on record, with about twenty-one of them thought to be still active.
The Dust Bowl isn’t just a name for a Brewery in Turlock (they’ve got a great IPA, though), but also a dark time in America’s history. With little understanding of the value of preserving our soils, the introduction of large-scale agriculture, with almost no regulation, depleted the land of moisture and nutrients. By the 1930’s, much of the agricultural land across the midwest had become a barren wasteland.
Thus, the federal government sprung into action to preserve this land and avoid another dust bowl disaster, and in 1933 the Federal Soil Conservation Service (FSCS) was founded. Unable to address the needs of individual land owners, the FSCS pushed for the creation of local districts to help individuals get on board with taking care of the soil. This lead to the creation of Sacramento’s four Resource Conservation Districts, each with a five-member elected board of directors that work directly with the FSCS.
I’ve often pondered which direction the water actually should swirl in the toilet, but I have to admit that I’ve never given any thought to where that water (and waste) goes, or who is responsible for its disposal. Good thing someone has already thought of that for me. The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District(SRCSD) provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to the major urban areas of Sacramento. Some of the more rural areas, such as Galt, Isleton, and Rancho Murieta, manage their own sewage services.
We all know the typical horror movie scene where a character is randomly walking through a dark alleyway at night, because of course they are. Inevitably that person gets kidnapped, attacked, or chased by something creepy. It’s funny because most of us would not walk down a pitch-black alley at night, and recognize the value of well-lit streets!
We’re fortunate to have street lighting in the urbanized areas of Sacramento, provided independently by cities. In addition to those, County Service Area No. 1 was founded in 1986, which includes all the unincorporated areas of the County of Sacramento and City of Rancho Cordova. This district does just about everything you would guess; it purchases, installs, and maintains all street and highway lights. In total, that’s 23,140 street lights and 3,770 highway lights. It is governed by the Board of Supervisors.
We’ve all got places to go, people to see; and in all the hustle and bustle we may sometimes take for granted the transit systems Sacramento has in place and the value that public transportation brings to our lives. There are currently four special transportation districts which are responsible for public busses, light rail, paratransit, and other ways of getting around town.
The Sacramento Regional Transit District was founded in 1973 and currently operates over 60 bus routes covering 418 square miles, as well as an extensive light rail system. It is governed by an 11-member board of directors, all consisting of county supervisors and city council members. The Sacramento Transportation Authority was founded in 1988 by the initiative Measure A, with much of its funding earmarked for the construction of highways, streets, and roads, increased light rail service, expanded services for the handicapped and elderly, and air quality programs. It is governed by a 15-member board of directors; 5 elected officials appointed by the County Supervisors, 5 elected officials appointed by the Sacramento City Council; 1 elected official appointed by the each of the following city councils: Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt and Rancho Cordova.
Throughout this journey we’ve learned about how Sacramento manages its cemeteries, water, and lights, and even how fires are fought. I always knew government was complex and expansive, but by diving deep into just one county, it’s clear the tentacles reach far beyond what I had expected.
**Author’s Note: the majority of the data provided in this article is from the Sacramento LAFCo website on special districts. Some information may outdated or missing, please contact them directly for the most up-to-date information.
The concept of Black Friday emerged in Philadelphia in the 1950s, an unhappy day when the city was overrun by crowds and petty crime, forcing police to work long hours and creating the unhappy name. It remained a local tradition until emerging nationally in the late 1980s with the reimagined (and typically untrue) story that it represented the happy day when retailers finally became profitable, while offering consumers rock bottom prices.
Cyber Monday was the next shopping tradition to emerge. Coined in 2005 by Shop.Org to describe the trend, it seems to have emerged more organically than its cousin shopping days as America’s workforce returned from the Thanksgiving Holiday less than eager to dive head-on into the week’s work, instead preferring to peruse the rapidly expanding world of e-commerce.
Five years later in 2010, American Express (a very large business) began promoting Small Business Saturday. The credit card company relies on small business owners as a major component of their portfolio and it proved both good marketing and a good cause as President Obama and other elected leaders began to lend their support the following year.
Two years later the family was finally complete, when Giving Tuesday emerged from the 91st Street Y in New York City, seeking to encourage giving and not just consumerism in the holiday season (Additionally, a great example of the value of including all Americans holidays in this happy season, since it was the Young Men’s Hebrew Association that brought our country together in the spirit of giving). A number of online vehicles and corporations got on board and it caught on quickly.
Which brings us to today.
There are no shortage of incredible local, national and international causes that will do great work with your hard earned dollars. There are also more than a few that won’t. For example, from CharityNavigator.org:
Giving money to organizations like these is benefitting only the executives’ yacht funds, not the first responders, veterans or children they are named for.
Of course, ratings like those are not the be-all-and-end-all of the quality of non-profits. At the extreme, they tell us who the worst swindlers are, but they do not necessarily tell us much at the margin, especially with service providing non-profits. For groups that exist primarily to raise money to disperse it to service providers, researchers, etc., these overhead-based efficiency ratings make a lot of sense because the money is all there is.
For groups that provide services directly, the money is not the point, the impact is.
While impact is not always easily quantified, especially in a way that leads to easy comparisons, the information should be readily available on the organization’s website. For example among some of our great local non-profits: My Sister’s House provided over 5,000 nights of shelter to women and children fleeing abuse; Reading Partners successfully taught 89% of their 400 students foundational reading skills; and the Front Street Shelter has taken in nearly 9,500 dogs and cats in 2017 through October, with nearly 2/3 adopted or returned home. A personal favorite of our family, is Fairy Tale Town providing incredible family fun while encouraging reading to over a quarter million visitors in the region in 2016. And, of course, the Sacramento State Alumni Association, whose board I serve on, held more than 475 events, engaged over 2,300 volunteer hours and awarded $37,000 in scholarships. Internationally, the Daraja Academy in Kenya, that a friend raises money for locally, does a particularly good job of sharing their impact:
(These are by no means all of the charities having a great impact in our community, just a handful of good ones that came to mind.)
So while we at Sacramentality would very strongly encourage that you give generously to charities in our community, we hope in doing so that you give smart. Know the mission you are supporting and know what how much good you are buying for the world with your hard earned dollars. If a charity you are considering supporting does not make this information readily available, you may wish to consider supporting another instead.
This post is a continuation of the story of Luella Johnston, Sacramento (and California’s) first elected councilwoman. I strongly recommend starting with Part I, where I discussed Luella’s civic and political activism in Sacramento, culminating in her successful 1912 campaign for a seat on the Sacramento City Council. In Part II, I discuss her first year on the City Council.
Tacoma Times (1912)
Rallying behind Luella’s candidacy, Sacramento’s women helped sweep local Progressives to victory in the 1912 city elections. It was a landmark year for Sacramento’s reformers, who had finally succeeded in kicking out the political machine that had long dominated city politics. Now came the challenge of governing.
The New Government: One of Business & Efficiency
Official City Seal (1912)
1912 was unlike any prior year for another reason: The five freshman councilmembers would be the first to serve under the new city charter. Prior to 1912, Sacramento had a traditional “Strong Mayor” form of government with a part-time, nine-member City Council and a full-time elected mayor acting as the city’s chief executive officer. Under the new charter, the office of the mayor had been eliminated and the City Council – renamed the CityCommission – was reduced to a five-member, full-time board. Under this “Commission” form of government, the Commission as a whole continued as the city’s legislative body but, instead of a unified executive, each councilmember – renamed a commissioner – was also individually assigned supervisory powers over a different city department.
The Commission Form was the cutting edge of early twentieth century municipal reform. The drafters of the new charter had promised it would bring about a more “efficient and business like administration.” Popularized in Galveston, Texas, and refined in Des Moines, Iowa, Commissions were thought to promote better management, as commissioners had every incentive to specialize in their assigned policy areas, and better accountability, as the voters could more easily identify and defeat any commissioner whose departments were found lacking.
Sacramento’s charter had five commissioner positions. They were:
Commissioner of Public Works
Commissioner of Streets
Commissioner of Public Health and Safety
Commissioner of Finance
Commissioner of Education
While the voters elected the five commissioners, the commissioners decided for themselves their departmental assignments.
Commission Minutes (1912)
By unanimous vote of her colleagues, Luella was appointed Commissioner of Education. While Luella’s election broke gender boundaries, the education assignment was a (disappointingly) safe choice in line with the era’s social norms. Luella had, however, campaigned for the assignment and, given her background as a teacher and her prior successes around curriculum reform, it was certainly a good fit.
It was also a deceptively powerful post, responsible for a good portion of the city’s budget. Under the charter, the Commissioner of Education had supervision “of all school buildings, property and grounds, and of the construction, maintenance, and repair thereof.” The former Board of Education had also been merged with the new Commission; by virtue of her assignment, Luella also served as Board president whenever the Commission reconvened as that body to decide school matters.
The scope of the Education Commissioner’s duties extended, though, even beyond the schoolhouse doors. The Commissioner supervised all parks and playgrounds; the municipal employment office; all libraries, art galleries, theaters and places of amusement; humane and reformatory boards; and “all matters affecting the intellectual and moral advancement of the city, other than police and sanitary regulations.”
As local historians Elaine Connolly and Dian Self observed, the Education Commissioner’s assignments “sounded like the script [Luella] wrote for the Tuesday Club in 1900.”
The Commission’s First Year: Sacramento Awakened
Commission Chambers (c. 1917)
Under complete Progressive control, the Commission’s first year was a whirlwind of activity as reform-minded Commissioners proposed large infrastructure investments to bring the city into the modern era and set about undoing prior municipal give-aways to the city’s public service corporations.
Luella had pledged that flood control would be her top priority; true to her word, one of the Commission’s first acts was to propose to voters a bond (which passed) to raise city levees and construct the Sacramento bypass at Bryte Bend. Other improvements followed, including extending water mains and sewer lines to the annexed neighborhoods; building of a Hall of Justice including a hospital, court, and jail; purchasing an asphalt-mixing machine to pave the streets; securing land downtown for new state buildings that promised to bring hundreds of jobs Sacramento; and creating a municipally-owned electrical distribution system to light city streets and parks through a combination of construction and eminent domain. The later proposal stoked the ire of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), the city’s private electricity provider, which furiously fought the associated bond.
Like the street light bond, many ordinances the Commission passed took direct aim at the city’s powerful public services corporations. For decades the city’s largest corporations, like PG&E and the Southern Pacific Railroad, had backed and bribed local party bosses and city officials and reaped generous city contracts and franchises, or even a municipal blind eye to their activities, in return. No more. In just one year, half-century streetcar franchises granted by the prior City Council were rescinded as too long; gas rates and telephone deposits were ordered cut; maximum rates for water, electricity, gas, phone, and other private utilities were set or planned; and a new “rental” tax was imposed on all the services corporations that used city streets and alleys to run their pipes, wires, or streetcars — supposedly the first such tax in the state.
The Commission seemed well on its way to delivering on its strident promise of a modern government where the municipality called the shots and not the corporations. “It is evident that the progressive spirit of The People has been awakened,” said Luella, “and that henceforth Sacramento is to take its place among the wide-awake and enterprising cities of the country.”
“A Very Successful Administration”
Sacramento Bee (1913)
Luella was busy with her executive duties as Education Commissioner, too. In fact, probably busier than any other commissioner.
The city charter had been written so that, each year, a different commissioner would be up for re-election. To accomplish this, the inaugural 1912 commissioners were elected to either one-, two-, three-, or four-year short terms or a five-year full term, with higher vote-getters receiving longer terms. Luella had received the fewest votes of the five winners and so would face the voters first: with the clock ticking, she knew “I shall just have to work that much harder to crowd into my present one year term all the improvements of which I am capable.”
The city’s 24 schools, her main charge, seemed to do well under her watch. Attendance increased and teachers received an across-the-board pay raise. Although costs were up as a consequence, and state and county appropriations had decreased over the previous year, Luella’s department still came in under budget. Open bidding requirements for supplies and services, in particular, had cut costs and reduced opportunities for graft and cronyism.
She responded competently to a major crisis in office. When a fire burned down the Capital School, displacing dozens of students and overcrowding nearby schools, Luella ordered the construction of seven portables so classes could quickly resume until a new site was found.
She also celebrated a number of successes. She cleared out the crony hires at the city cemetery, a notorious landing site for supporters of the old political bosses. With a donation from Weinstock, Lubin & Co., she opened the city’s second playground at South Side Park – thousands of kids attended. Library membership grew by several thousands and 11,000 new volumes were added to shelves. Finally, she scored a personal and professional victory when the Southern Pacific agreed to enroll its “shop boys” in night school, demonstrating the value of her longtime vision for integrating vocational training into the curriculum.
Boston Herald (1912)
Luella also took very seriously her charter-mandated duty to advance city morals and squelch vice as well. She fought to curtail illegal gambling, prostitution, and saloons that the prior council had ignored and, of her own initiative, went after “spooning” by youths in the park. Not all of her efforts have aged well. When fighting broke out at a local play over “near-nasty musical numbers,” she threatened to create a Board of Theatrical Censors to “pass upon the moral nature of the shows.”
But, judging her record on the whole, it seems hard to disagree with the Bee’s assessment that Luella had run “a very successful administration.”
A Woman’s Place
Bee Cartoon, lampooning some men’s fear of equal suffrage (1911)
In the lead up to the 1911 election on women’s suffrage, opponents argued that allowing women to vote would destroy society because, next, they would be moving out of the home and demanding greater social, professional, and political responsibilities. Thankfully they were right about that later part. Only a year after gaining the vote, Luella ran for and won a seat on the City Commission. A year out, she had proven that women could participate and excel in what had been the very male worlds of politics and governance.
Decades later, in 1948, Luella was asked to reflect on Belle Cooledge’s election to the Sacramento City Council and historic appointment as Mayor — the first woman mayor of a major American city. In an era where most women were housewives, Luella stuck to her defiantly egalitarian views. “Man or woman has nothing to do with the case,” said Luella, age 88.
You have to do with women what you do with men – balance up their capabilities then judge. … If that type of woman[, i.e. one of Cooledge’s caliber,] is willing to assume the added responsibility of mayor, in my judgment, she is fitted for it.
In thinking about the sexism Luella had to overcome to win a seat and be successful at City Hall in 1912, it is hard to ignore recent headlines documenting the sexism and harassment women still confront in the State Capitol, just a few blocks and a hundred-plus years away. It is also hard to ignore that women remain underrepresented at all levels of elected government, including Sacramento’s nine-member City Council which, once more, has only one councilwoman. We still have far to go.
Even so, I think Luella would be proud of the women leaders following her that have continued to tear down those barriers and insist that people be judged based on their capabilities and not their gender.
Stay tuned for my third and final post on Luella, where I discuss her hard-fought re-election campaign and later years.
In putting together this account of Luella’s time in office and 1910s Sacramento I drew heavily on, and am indebted to, the following sources:
Our toddler freshly asleep, my wife and I sat down to watch a bit of TV before bed last night. The Simpsons popped up at the top of the “My Shows” list. Now, I have not watched the animated classic much the last few years, but I figured, “why not?” A few minutes into Homer discovering that Maggie could whistle, I had my answer. How did this incredible show that wove so much timely humor through important issues in economics, religion,philosophy,American politics,political theory,parenting and so much else become such a boring, pointless exercise? I thought the show had hit rock bottom when it made an episode starringMoe’s bar rag. That was 123 episodes ago.
But instead of further calls to put the once iconic show out of its misery, I thought I might draw attention to some classic episodes (including a list of my personal favorites at the end of this article) that could provide some insight into challenges we as both Americans and Sacramentans are facing today and, perhaps more importantly, add some levity to difficult times.
Hard as it is to believe, the June 2018 Congressional midterms (and city council elections!) are right around the corner and candidates are already busy passing around the hat and dusting off their talking points. The Simpsons first waded into the art of political pandering with “Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish.” Appearing early in Season 2, we see the Billionaire Montgomery Burns deciding it is more cost effective to run for Governor and change the laws than comply with environmental regulations to protect against, among other things, the creation of three-eyed mutant fish. In an attempt to overcome his massive unpopularity, Burns pours millions into a smear campaign against his female opponent and appears on the verge of victory before Marge forces him into a televised gaffe, saving the day.
Another political gem was the Simpsons 200th episode, which featured U2 guest playing a concert on a trash heap while the inimitable Steve Martin played the hard working, committed public servant Ray Patterson. Patterson brought a professional seriousness and the expertise that comes with well-earned experience to the position of Sanitation Commissioner. His experience and spotless track record proved inadequate when Homer decided to run against him. Bringing bluster, unrealistic promises (“Can’t Someone Else Do It”) and a woeful disregard for budgetary math and even basic facts, Homer is elected in a landslide and disaster ensues.
We, as voters in the real world, have a responsibility to do better than the people of Springfield. The actions of our elected leaders have consequences and if we continue down the current path:
Homer Badman proves that the Simpsons can also get it wrong, while (I suspect inadvertently) providing important insight. After a gluttonous trip to the candy convention, Homer sets off to drive their graduate student and feminist activist babysitter home. As she gets out of the car, he sees the Venus de Milo candy he had pilfered stuck to her pants. Overcome by his lust for the “sweet candy” he plucked it off of her rear end and from there is swept into a whirlwind of public outrage and over the top trashy journalism. By the end of the show the babysitter had realized she had falsely accused Homer, a clear victim of an overzealous, dishonest media and feminist activism.
“Two, four, six, eight, Homer’s crime was very great! ‘Great’ meaning large or immense, we use it in the pejorative sense!”
We all need to be more aware of it than Homer Simpson, because nearly all of us have done it. (#MeToo) We may not have realized it. We may have thought it was just a collegial joke or a friendly compliment. But we did it. We hurt people. And we need to do better.
In “Last Exit to Springfield,” out of sheer greed, Mr. Burns decides to eliminate his employees’ dental plan. The witless employees running the nuclear plant celebrate the short-term trade off of a keg of Duff Beer until Homer realizes that without the dental plan, he’ll be forced to pay out of pocket for Lisa’s expensive dental care — an important warning to any ‘young invincibles’ excited at the prospects of new high deductible Trumpcare plans — Homer leads the plant employees to strike. After a hilarious serious of foibles in attempting to run the plant without workers and wonderful Grinch-inspired efforts to crush the union have failed (And lacking any real substantive consequences), Mr. Burns relents and agrees to reinstate the dental plan.
“We’ll march ’till we drop The girls and the fellas. We’ll fight ’till the death Or else fold like umbrellas.”
In “The PTA Disbands,” we get a more pointed look at the reality of negotiations in the public sector setting, as expressed by Principal Skinner: “What’s the point? There’s no more money, unless you’ve got some magic new source of revenue.” Seeking “a small cost-of-living increase and some better equipment and supplies for your children” and goaded on by a mischievous Bart, eager to escape class, the teachers go on strike. The schools continue to operate, with classes taught by members of the community … some of whom advocate corporal punishment and cannot keep their beards from being caught in the pencil sharpener. None prove adequate replacements. Once having his mother as a substitute teacher ruins Bart’s fun, he tricks the principal and teachers into negotiating and they come up with a magic new source of revenue — housing prisoners in the school.
In Sacramento, we are facing a similar situation. The teachers are on the verge of a strike, asking for a number of improvements, including smaller class sizes, filling vacancies and increased salaries to bring them in line with other districts in the region.
The teachers believe that the District has adequate funds to cover these improvements, citing high levels of reserves and increased administrator salaries. The district counters that teachers are paid competitively within the region, with modestly lower pay but more generous benefits. The reality is that meaningful apples-to-apples comparisons are challenging. Each district’s pay scale is different in regard to rewarding experience and, especially, rewarding varying levels of education.
This dispute, though, exists in no small part because California spends less than average on education. While making an apples-to-apples comparison is complicated, recent estimates have California between $614 to $1,961 below average in per student spending. D’oh! No matter the source, no matter the methodology, it is clear that California spends less on education than other states.
Perhaps then, the solution is a simple one: spend more money on education. Given the structure of education funding in California, local districts do not have the option of shifting around local spending priorities, so the only option is to increase taxes.
There are, of course, trade-offs to every tax but the reality is that for less than $20 per parcel per month (author’s calculation based on Measure G revenue estimates and 2,200 FTEs), we could provide every teacher in Sacramento City USD a ten thousand dollar raise. Such a raise would make our schools the most desirable destination for the best teachers in the region, which has been shown to increase the number of applicants and, more importantly, the quality of hires.
While money is tight in our growing household, my family would be thrilled to have the opportunity to invest in this way in our local schools, our children’s future and the future of our region’s economy. I suspect many families around our district would feel the same and, moreover, despite the recent narrow failure of Measure G, local education parcel taxes have a very strong track record at the ballot box … purple monkey dishwasher.
While it seems pretty likely that the Simpsons production team cannot do better at this point, here in Sacramento, I know we can. In some ways we already are doing better. Our County is in the process of implementing the Voter’s Choice Act, which will make it easier for every citizen to fully participate in our democracy. And if you are interested, I happen to be holding a forum on the Voter’s Choice Act next week:
Devin’s Simpsons Recommended Viewing
As a proud member of theOregon Trail Generation (those of us who straddle Gen X and Millenial cut-offs, who, being able to remember a world without computers, but having adopted them in childhood are fundamentally different from both), I sometimes run into difficulties communicating with younger colleagues because my speech is often peppered with Simpsons references. (Perhaps a better reference than Oregon Trail would be First-wave Simpsonists?) In order to help overcome these challenges, I came up with a list of recommended viewing including the best and most culturally important episodes (in the oh so humble opinion of this author), which is included at the end of the article. Enjoy!
Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish, Season 2, Episode 4
Homer Defined, Season 3, Episode 5
Flaming Moe’s, Season 3, Episode 10
Homer at the Bat, Season 3, Episode 17
Homer the Heretic, Season 4, Episode 3
Homer’s Triple Bypass, Episode 4, Season 11
Duffless, Season 4, Episode 16
Last Exit to Springfield, Season 4, Episode 17
Cape Feare, Season 5, Episode 2
Treehouse of Horror V, Season 6, Episode 6
Homer the Great, Season 6, Episode 12
Lisa’s Wedding, Season 6, Episode 19
Two Dozen and One Greyhounds, Season 6, Episode 20
The PTA Disbands, Season 6, Episode 21
Lisa the Vegetarian, Season 7, Episode 5
King Size Homer, Season 7, Episode 7
Twenty-Two Short Films About Springfield, Season 7, Episode 21
Much Apu About Nothing, Season 7, Episode 23
You Only Move Twice, Season 8, Episode 2
El Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Jomer, Season 8, Episode 9
When we first started Sacramentality in January of this year, I knew I wanted to do more than talk about the vivid present and unfolding future of Sacramento. I also wanted to write about the hazy and forgotten local icons – the heroes, villains, and indifferents – who shaped our city’s identity. Perhaps because the presidential election had so recently concluded, there was one name, of an early political figure, I kept returning to: Luella Johnston.
Luella was an early twentieth century society grande dame who metamorphosed into a local political crusader. She had a transformative impact on Sacramento politics and policy, helping to propel our city into the modern era of municipal governance. She was also a pioneer in the march towards gender equality as California’s first elected city councilwoman.
Like many of her era, Luella Johnston (née Buckminster) was not originally a Californian. She was born in New Hampshire in 1861, the daughter of a Union soldier who died in the Civil War. She moved West to California as a child in 1869, ultimately becoming a teacher in San Francisco in her teens before marrying Alfred Johnston in 1884.
Alfred ran a successful Sacramento printing business, the A. J. Johnston Co. He was by contemporary accounts a self-made man and his business flourished. So much so that, by 1891, the Governor appointed him Superintendent of State Printing. A short time later, that position was converted into an elected office, which he won in 1894 and won again in 1898.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Johnstons were wealthy, well-travelled in political circles, and, thanks to Luella, among Sacramento’s leading socialites.
High Society & The Club of ’99
San Francisco Daily Call Society Page (1899)
Luella had a knack for organizing people, events, and parties. In 1899 she founded the “Club of ’99” to entertain the wives and daughters of state elected officials. Newspapers recount lavish soirées with distinguished guests, catered suppers, and orchestral accompaniment. These were light and fun affairs receiving the same type of coverage we might read in People Magazine today. “Mrs. A. J. Johnston wore a dress of blue taffeta, silk trimmed, with white satin bowknots and lace,” gushed one account.
The Club of ’99 was purely social, and might even be described as frivolous. It embodied the acceptable role for high-society nineteenth century women. And while the ladies may have been surrounded by politics, they weren’t themselves to participate in politics.
From Socialite to Activist: The Tuesday Club & the Emergence of Women as a Political Force
But that was about to change. With the turning of the century, America’s women were becoming more political. There’s a notable shift in the historical record when Ms. Johnston’s interests moved on from parties to politics. The socialite became suffragette and civic reformer.
At first, the Tuesday Literary Club was just another entry in Luella’s social calendar. Founded in 1896, the club was originally a weekly reading group for prominent Sacramento housewives. But, as club ranks swelled from a few dozen to a few hundred, members started discussing, studying, and engaging with the problems of the day in Sacramento.
Painting of the Tuesday Club Clubhouse (circa 1912)
Luella Johnston’s 1899-1901 club presidency, reports the Center for Sacramento History, was the catalyst that “changed the mission and direction of the organization.” Under her tenure, the club started getting involved in civic affairs and – heavens! – even lobbying city officials for change. A reading group no more, the club shortened its name to the “Tuesday Club” and adopted a mission statement to “encourage all movements for the betterment of society.”
City vice became the club’s primary target. Early twentieth century Sacramento had not quite shed its Wild West past. Prostitution was rampant, writes Sacramento historian Steven Avella. Similarly, “saloons, gambling, illegal lotteries, opium dens, and bars that stayed open all night were as hard to erase as original sin.” Who better than women, then-regarded as the “moral guardians” of the home and society, to take on these mostly male failings? The club scored its first victory in 1900 when, under Luella’s leadership, it convinced the city council to ban any new bars in residential areas, improbably besting the politically-powerful saloon owners. The law became known as the “Tuesday Club Ordinance” and lasted until its obsolescence with Prohibition.
Sacramento Bee Cartoon (1911)
Other successes quickly followed, reports the Center for Sacramento History: “The club petitioned the city trustees for a matron at the city jail, started a cooking school for young girls, [and] convinced the city to establish McKinley Park in East Sacramento.”
The Tuesday Club had become everything the ’99 Club was not: a political player.
An Organic Union: The Woman’s Council
These accomplishments galvanized other women’s groups in the city. In 1904 Luella organized a coalition of 30 women’s clubs known as the “Woman’s Council” to act as a more purposefully political, sister-organization to the Tuesday Club. (Thereafter the Tuesday Club retreated to being once-more a primarily social and philanthropic organization. After a 117-year run, the Tuesday Club disbanded in 2014.)
Woman’s Council’s Constitution
The Council was an immediate success. The log of its early activities report win-after-win in early Sacramento’s rough-and-tumble politics. For example, in 1904 the Council proposed and helped pass a bond to create a high school. In 1905, the Council successfully petitioned for the city hospital to hire a receiving matron. In 1906, the Council convinced the city to add name plates to every street in the city.
Luella was president of the Woman’s Council from 1907 through 1909. These were energetic and successful years. Contemporary Council log books report that, “again and again,” local elected officials, business associations, and neighborhood organizations asked the Council to “plan and promote campaigns for City improvements,” including street electrification, installing public drinking fountains, adding residential mailboxes, working on city canals, and building a public swimming pool.
The Council pushed the city administration to be more modern and to professionalize. For example, in 1907, at Luella’s instigation, the Council brought University of Chicago professor Charles Zueblin to Sacramento to deliver lectures on the new science of city planning. His lectures enthralled the business community and launched Sacramento’s “modern period of city planning” as a succession of planners were hired to map out the future of different city neighborhoods. (For his efforts Zueblin, for a time, became known as the “father of Sacramento’s civic planning.”)
But of all Luella’s accomplishments with the Council, she was personally proudest of having convinced the city’s schools to require the teaching of “manual training” (e.g. woodworking) and “domestic science” (e.g. cooking) courses to all children. A former teacher, Luella viewed education as her lifelong calling. This was a sweet victory: she had been advocating for practical education since 1901, when, under her presidency, the Tuesday Club launched a free girl’s cooking class to, in her words, “further the education of women for the responsibilities of life.”
Single Mom & Businesswoman
Alfred had passed away in 1906, just prior to Luella’s Council presidency. The Governor, Secretary of State, and State Printer all closed their offices for a day in his honor. At age 45, Luella became a single mom of five children, three of whom were still minors.
She also became the head of the A.J. Johnston printing empire, undoubtedly one of the few women in the city actively running a major company.
It’s hard to imagine how someone could find the time to be a single mother, executive, and civic reformer with only 24 hours in a day. I get the sense that Luella simply felt she had no other choice: there was too much that needed to be done.
The Fight of a Generation: Women’s Suffrage
Postcard: “California [Was] Next” (sent 1918)
1911 had the potential to be a life-altering year for California’s women and Luella was not going to sit it out. For the second time, the men of California would be deciding whether or not to give women the vote.
A decade and a half prior, in 1896, California voters (all men) voted down a proposed amendment to the state constitution which would have granted women the right to vote in state and local elections. The campaign for women’s suffrage had fared particularly poorly in major cities in the northern half of the state, including Sacramento where 60% voted against. Saloonkeepers and liquor interests, influential in working class areas, had staunchly opposed the initiative, fearing (correctly, as it turns out) that enfranchised women might push for prohibition.
Success in California in 1911 would be a springboard for a national constitutional amendment to secure for women the right to vote in all elections. A second defeat might devastate the movement.
Recognizing the need to reverse the vote in the northern cities, state suffrage organizations reached out to the Woman’s Council to co-lead the campaign in Sacramento. According to late Sacramento historian Dian Self, Luella was a “leader of the get-out-the-vote effort” for the campaign. The Council allocated funds for outreach and conducted an extensive persuasion campaign: it included street oratory, sending speakers to church groups and civic clubs, placing campaign materials in storefronts, distributing handbills to homeward-bound schoolchildren, house-to-house canvassing, and concerted lobbying of labor unions.
In the evening of October 10, 1911, the polls closed. They had done it: women had won the franchise. Sacramento County voters, reversing their prior opposition, voted 52% in favor.
The women of Sacramento had once again shown their political muscle, but this time in direct political campaigning. It was experience that would soon come in handy.
A Singular Moment: Progress Seizes Sacramento
Late 1800s to early 1900s California politics were dominated by the Southern Pacific Railroad. The “SP” was one of the most powerful economic forces in the state. It had an interstate rail monopoly in Northern California and jealously guarded this prize against competition or government regulation. Politicians were greased to support the railroad’s interests, and opposed them at their peril. As one late nineteenth century journalist wrote,
it didn’t matter whether a man was a Republican or Democrat. The Southern Pacific Railroad controlled both parties, and he either had to stay out of the game altogether or play it with the railroad.
By 1901, author Frank Norris nicknamed the railroad the “Octopus” because its tentacles of influence reached to every area of the state. “The Southern Pacific,” notes the Economist, “bribed and cajoled legislators, judges, journalists and mayors.”
The Wasp Cartoon (1882)
This included Sacramento local politics, where the SP was particularly influential. Sacramento was strategically important to the railroad. The SP’s sprawling Sacramento railyards employed more than 2,000 workers and, per local historian William Burg, “produced everything from hand tools to full-sized steam locomotives and was the main repair and supply facility for Southern Pacific’s national system.”
City Hall at the time was controlled by a political patronage machine lead by Mayor Marshall “Boss” Beard and Councilman Edward Carraghar. Both were firmly in the railroad’s pocket. In 1907, for example, the council thwarted an effort by the Western Pacific to build a new rail line into the city which had threatened the SP’s monopoly.
However, across the state and in Sacramento, the tide was beginning to turn against the Southern Pacific. Hiram Johnson, a Sacramento native, was elected governor in 1910 promising to curtail the power of the railroads and to move the state forward “calmly, coolly, pertinaciously, unswervingly and with absolute determination, until the public service reflects only the public good and represents alone the people.” The Progressives, as they came to be known, swept into power in 1911 and enacted a series of wide-ranging reforms intended to blunt the SP’s power.
Locally, Progressives were also riding a string of victories. They had recently passed a referendum, over the Council’s objections, to let the Western Pacific into the city. And, although they had failed to defeat Beard and Carraghar in the last election, they had passed a new city charter, significantly changing the structure of Sacramento city government and its elections.
1912 would be the first election under the new charter, and the Progressives, mobilized as the “Municipal Voters’ League,” were eager to evict the SP cronies who had held office for so long. “The question” for voters, wrote the sympathetic Sacramento Bee, “is between the forces of the Machine and the forces of Good Government.”
Block-by-Block: The 1912 Campaign
Map of Sacramento (1913)
The 1912 election was marked by many firsts. In descending order of importance, this was the first city election that:
Women could vote in.
Included the newly annexed suburbs of East Sacramento, Highland Park, and Oak Park.
Would be held under Sacramento’s new charter, which created a five-member council with greatly expanded executive powers.
Add to that another first: Luella was the first candidate that year, man or woman, to pull candidacy papers for city council.
Suffragettes had sometimes run for office, for example Mayor, Governor, or President, to make a rhetorical point about gender inequality; these were half-hearted campaigns at best because they had no delusions of actually winning. Luella’s was not.
Her whole life had prepared her for this moment. On paper, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more perfect candidate: leading citizen, business owner, former president of two of the city’s largest civic organizations, accomplished reformer, and conversant in all the major municipal issues.
Perfect, of course, except for her gender. One Bee story reported the difficulty she was having in overcoming the “peculiarity of some male temperaments – they will not admit that a woman has brains enough to hold public office.” Like many women before and since, Luella would repeatedly have to justify her intrusion into the male world. “My interests in civic questions has taken me out of the usual lines,” she once acknowledged, “for I have worked on the clear water problem, levee improvement, economy of administration, fire protection and general civic issues of importance to the whole city.”
Her stump speech centered on eternal political themes; it could just have easily been delivered in 2012 instead of 1912. She pitched herself as a law-and-order candidate, citing public safety as her top priority and pledging firm enforcement of all city laws (a possible allusion to unenforced bans on gambling and prostitution). She told the Union that bolstering the Sacramento River and American River levees must “come before every other consideration.” (Still an important cause today.) Her platform encompassed many issues, reflecting how attuned she was to the municipal challenges of the day. She campaigned on municipal ownership of utilities; developing William Land’s land gift as a great park; and adopting the latest reforms in public education.
Finally, to the city’s women, she promised to “do all in my power and within my province to maintain the laws bettering the condition of women, and will bend every effort in that direction.”
The Municipal Voter’s League quickly endorsed her, praising both her civic accomplishments and her “marked executive and constructive ability and well-balanced judgment.” The Woman’s Council also publicly endorsed her, then promptly held a tea party with “fashionable gowns and picture hats” to begin registering women to vote. Campaigning can be fun. The Sacramento Bee, a vocal enemy of the incumbent council, lavished her campaign with positive coverage, praising Luella “as a woman of progressive ideas and sound judgment, level-headed and full of energy.”
Complementing and perhaps dwarfing these endorsements was Luella’s own formidable organizing prowess. She assembled a “Women’s Precinct Organization” to run her campaign and drive newly enfranchised women to the polls. Sixty-four women – a veritable campaign army, even by today’s standards – enlisted as precinct captains for her campaign. On election day, her volunteers staked out polling stations to hand out endorsement cards and organized automobile house calls to bring women to the polls.
And go to the polls they did. The Sacramento Call reported that “the big vote in the residence district was due largely to the fact that the women got out in force.” Female turnout exceeded expectations. One poll-worker joked to the Sacramento Union that women were only voting for the free car rides; a female voter overheard him and “immediately emerged from the [voting] booth, went up to the clerk, took him to task for his remarks and demanded an apology. … That ended the talk about joy riding for the afternoon.”
With the dust settled and the votes tallied, the Municipal Voters’ League’s slate had prevailed with a clean sweep. Luella was elected. It was a stunning victory for local Progressives and the city’s women. As one paper effused,
The women of this city have taught the men a lesson in practical politics. By organizing a machine of their own, they routed the professional politicians, defeated all five candidates put up by the Southern Pacific Machine … and swept into office the five commissioners of their own choosing. … Among them is Mrs. Luella B. Johnston, head of the women’s machine…
Sacramento Bee Cartoon (1912)
An Historic Win
Luella was the first woman elected to the Sacramento City Council. More than that, “Mrs. Johnston is the first woman elected to city office in the state,” reported the San Francisco Call. (While records are sparse, she may even have been the first woman elected to the city council of any major American city.)
Luella was not the first woman elected to public office in California; but I would argue her election was of greater societal importance than her predecessors. Prior to 1912, women were prohibited from running for all state and local offices except one: women were permitted to run for (but not vote in) elections for county education offices. (For example, Sacramento County’s first female Superintendent of Schools was Minnie O’Neil, elected in 1907.) This accommodation was, however, sexist in its own way, reflecting contemporary gender norms that women should be the primary caretakers and educators of children.
What Luella and Sacramento had done was something new.
For the first time, the voters entrusted a woman with general governmental power.
It was the start of a new era.
The Recently Completed City Hall (photo circa 1912)
Stay tuned in the coming weeks for Part II, where I continue my short biography of Luella by examining her first year in office.
In putting together this account of Luella’s life and 1910s Sacramento I drew heavily on, and am indebted to, the following sources: