Measure EE: Should Oakland’s mayor get more power — with some checks and balances? - California News Beep

One measure on the November ballot would fundamentally change the city’s government structure. Measure EE would reform Oakland’s charter to give the mayor more power. If passed, Oakland mayors would directly control the city administration and have the authority to veto the City Council’s decisions about the budget and other legislation.

The council, in turn, would be able to override the mayor’s veto and would be granted some additional support, like a new independent office to help them write policy and keep an eye on finances.

In order to understand what would change under Measure EE, it’s helpful to know how things currently work.

Oakland’s current system of government

Most cities in California, like Berkeley and Emeryville, operate under what’s called a “council-manager” form of government. Under this system of local democracy, voters elect a city council, and then the members of that council hire a professional city manager. The manager then appoints and supervises department heads and runs the government on a day-to-day basis. The mayor is often just another member of the city council with some ceremonial powers, or the authority to run council meetings.

But a few of California’s big cities do things differently. San Francisco and Los Angeles, for example, have a form of government called “strong mayor.” Under this blueprint of power, the elected mayor takes on the work of the city manager. The mayor is the boss, appointing department heads and making sure policies and legislation are put into action — and vetoing decisions they don’t like. The council has less power and focuses mostly on legislation.

Oakland is a unique case. Its government design has been described by some as a “hybrid” that has elements of both the strong-mayor and council-manager systems. And lots of people think this has downsides. SPUR, the nonprofit public policy organization with offices in Oakland, wrote in a 2021 report that Oakland’s system “makes it difficult to establish accountability for the effective functioning of government, since it leaves open the question of which branch of government is in charge.”

Right now, Oakland’s mayor has the power to hire and fire the city administrator (the same thing as a “city manager” in other places) and the police chief. But the mayor can’t pick department heads and isn’t in charge of running the city day-to-day. The City Council, meanwhile, has the power to approve new laws and policies. But the councilmembers are banned from directing city staff to do anything, a rule that was originally put in place to prevent corruption.

When it comes to the budget, the mayor leads the administration in drafting a detailed proposal. The council then gets to make some amendments (usually modest) and passes the final budget plan.

As public debate about Oakland’s style of government intensified over the past couple of years, Mayor Barbara Lee set up a task force to study the issue. In January, the task force recommended some big changes. In May, Lee and City Council President Kevin Jenkins put pen to paper and came up with a plan. The council then voted to place these changes on the ballot — though not everybody was on board. Even though many people agree that the charter needs to be changed, they strongly disagree on the details.

When you get your ballot for the Nov. 3 election, this will appear as Measure EE. It needs a simple majority to pass.

What would Measure EE do?

If voters approve Measure EE, the city charter, Oakland’s constitution, would be amended to recast the distribution of power and to create some new checks and balances. The following highlights are drawn from an impartial analysis by the city attorney.

The mayor of Oakland’s role would change in the following ways:

The mayor would become Oakland’s chief executive, gaining the right to directly appoint most department heads and the authority to direct their work.

There would still be a city administrator, appointed by the mayor, but this person would have much less power. Their job would be to run the departments of Human Resources and Finance.

If the City Council passed legislation the mayor disagreed with, the mayor could veto it. At the same time, the mayor would lose the ability to cast tie-breaking votes whenever the City Council is deadlocked.

The city budget would fall much more under the mayor’s control because they would have line-item veto power.

To check the power of this strengthened mayor, the City Council would gain the following:

The city administrator’s picks to lead the departments of Human Resources and Finance would need to be confirmed by the council. Similarly, leadership appointments to any departments responsible for designing, building, and maintaining infrastructure would need council approval (think OakDOT or Public Works).

To scrutinize the mayor’s budgets and help review legislation, the council would get an independent legislative analyst.

Councilmembers would be empowered to communicate directly with city staff about concerns they’re hearing from constituents. They still wouldn’t be permitted to give orders to city staffers who work for the mayor and administration, but this rule would no longer be enforceable as a misdemeanor.

If the council feels stymied or stonewalled, they would be able to issue subpoenas forcing city staff to hand over records and give testimony.

Although the mayor could veto legislation, the council could override these vetoes with six affirmative votes. The same would go for the mayor’s line-item budget vetoes.

City Council would be considered a full-time job, and members would be banned from outside employment that interferes or conflicts with their official duties.

Oakland City Hall viewed from above. Oakland City Hall. Credit: Richard H. Grant for The Oaklandside

Is there a cost to Measure EE?

According to the City Auditor Michael Houston’s impartial analysis, switching to a strong mayor system will cost $2 to $2.6 million per year.

That’s because the measure will require the Public Ethics Commission, not the council, to set new salaries for the mayor and councilmembers. The commission would be tasked with setting their pay at levels comparable to professional, full-time employees and similar public officials in other cities in California — a process already used to set pay for other officials in Oakland. Houston says this would probably lead to increases between $36,000 and $108,000 in pay and benefits for each councilmember.

What are the arguments in support of Measure EE?

Supporters say Measure EE is the path toward a more trustworthy City Hall that’s responsive to residents’ calls for services and accountable when things go wrong. Advocates of charter reform say the mayor often gets blamed for issues in the city by constituents who don’t realize their power is limited.

“Reforming Oakland’s system so city department heads answer to one executive leader — the Mayor — strengthens coordination, focus, and more decisive responses to crises,” supporters write in the official argument in favor of Measure EE. “You elect a Mayor to do a job, and you should be able to clearly judge their performance.”

Centralizing authority under the mayor “speeds up action and service on homelessness, public safety, and illegal dumping,” they say.

The independent budget and legislative analyst office that would work with the City Council would provide greater oversight for how tax dollars are spent. And the mayor’s new powers would be checked by the council’s veto overrides, they argue. Plus, they say, the council could hold the mayor and city department heads accountable with their new subpoena power.

In addition to Barbara Lee and Kevin Jenkins, Measure EE supporters include:

Former city administrator Fred Blackwell

Revitalize East Bay Chair Isaac Abid

Labor leader and small business owner Richard Fuentes

Block-by-Block Organizing Network Co-Chair Sheryl Walton

League of Women Voters of Oakland President Ernestine Nettles

Pastor and former Faith in Action Co-Chair Michael Wallace

Former Mayor Libby Schaaf

Former City Attorney Barbara Parker

What are the arguments against Measure EE?

Opponents say Oakland does need to amend its city charter to create a more effective, trustworthy, and modern system. But they maintain that Measure EE has some major flaws.

The official argument against Measure EE, submitted to the clerk’s office by former councilmember Loren Taylor, Budget Advisory Commission member Ben Gould, and community advocates Pam Drake and Naomi Schiff describes the measure as a “power grab.”

“It makes our government less transparent, increases the risks of corruption, and drives political gridlock. This isn’t about the current mayor — it’s about Oakland’s future,” they write.

They believe a stronger mayor would actually lead to more “backroom dealings” in which the mayor would be increasingly influenced by special interests while community needs are neglected.

The mayor’s ability to pick department heads is bad, they argue, because it “lets future mayors appoint their unqualified friends and allies to cushy government jobs,” risking corruption and mismanagement.

And they believe it will cause more political gridlock because the veto-wielding mayor would be able to block the majority will of the council.

“This measure gives councilmembers massive pay raises — all while asking them to do less,” they say. (The measure doesn’t set specific salaries for councilmembers, but it introduces a process allowing increases.)

Other opponents of Measure EE include:

Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley

Former councilmember Nancy Nadel

Former Public Ethics Commission Chair Ralph Kanz

Civic activist James Vann

Political activist Sharon Rose

Measure EE: Should Oakland’s mayor get more power — with some checks and balances?

Tags: