<\/p>\n
A change in how Oakland City Hall functions could go before voters. Mayor Barbara Lee convened a working group to identify ways to reform the city\u2019s governmental structure, and it recommends amending the city charter to broaden the powers of the mayor and the City Council.<\/p>\n
Santiago Mejia\/S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n
In response to an independent report issued in 2021<\/a> that recommended changes to Oakland\u2019s governing structure, Mayor Barbara Lee convened a working group<\/a> to identify ways to make the city\u2019s political system more efficient, accountable and transparent.\u00a0<\/p>\n The working group\u2019s final report<\/a> also advocated for the city to amend its charter, \u201cstrengthening the mayor\u2019s powers to establish clear executive authority\u201d while also \u201cempowering the City Council in ways that support rigorous legislative and budget analysis and oversight.\u201d<\/p>\n Those recommendations could soon take the form of a 2026 ballot measure and would alter the way Oakland is governed. Some critics of what is known as a \u201cstrong mayor\u201d approach are advocating for a different ballot measure that would enact a council-manager model of government that would install the mayor on the City Council while retaining a professional city manager to oversee operations.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n We asked two notable Oakland politicos\u00a0\u2014 former Mayor Libby Schaaf and former interim City Administrator Steven Falk\u00a0\u2014 to weigh in on whether the strong mayor or the council manager proposals make sense for Oakland. After reading both takes, please vote in our informal poll.<\/p>\n Reject the power grab<\/p>\n Oakland\u2019s broken organizational chart has been at the center of the East Bay political debate for more than a year. Mayor Barbara Lee\u2019s hand-picked working group recently released recommendations that, not surprisingly, propose to dramatically expand the mayor\u2019s authority and simultaneously make Oakland\u2019s City Council among the weakest in California.<\/p>\n San Francisco Chronicle Logo<\/p>\n Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Add Preferred Source<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n The City Council thus has a choice: put a strong-mayor measure on the ballot or choose a different, better system.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n If the council places the strong-mayor measure on the ballot\u00a0\u2014 and voters approve it\u00a0\u2014 the result would be a remarkable act of self-sabotage. It would rank among the most consequential own goals<\/a>\u00a0in Northern California political history, with council members affirmatively choosing to erode their own authority and weaken their already-tenuous connection to city operations.<\/p>\n Worse yet, the proposed strong-mayor system won\u2019t fix Oakland\u2019s organizational flaws<\/a>. Under the proposed system, the mayor will still not be required to attend council meetings. The City Council will still be weak, with no oversight over city operations. The elected city attorney will still have multiple clients with conflicting interests. And the city administrator will still likely turn over with each new mayor \u2014 and department heads will likely do the same if they are appointed by the mayor.<\/p>\n The result? Residents \u2014 who rely on council members to get potholes filled, trash collected and graffiti removed \u2014 will be more frustrated than they already are.<\/p>\n \u201cBut wait!\u201d some argue. \u201cPeople want and expect the leadership of a strong mayor!\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s not what the data say. In the working group\u2019s\u00a0survey<\/a> of 433 Oaklanders, 83% of respondents said they want to make the City Council stronger by giving it more direct ways to hold city administration accountable for performance. And 82% want the mayor to have a role on the City Council to help shape policies and laws.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n None of this is surprising. Californians have repeatedly rejected strong-mayor proposals, and no California city has successfully transitioned to a strong-mayor system in 20 years. Sacramento voters turned down strong-mayor schemes in 2014 and in 2020. San Jose backed off its 2020 attempt amid public outrage about concentrating power. And Oakland has rejected a pure strong-mayor system three times: twice before 1998 and again in 2002.<\/p>\n Furthermore, former Mayor Sheng Thao is scheduled to stand trial on\u00a0corruption charges this fall \u2014 just when people are casting their votes. Against that backdrop, it is impossible to imagine\u00a0Oaklanders giving unchecked authority to a single elected official. A failed strong-mayor proposal would effectively lock Oakland into its disastrous status quo for years to come.<\/p>\n To use a technical term, that would be a damned shame.<\/p>\n Fortunately, there is a better option for improving Oakland\u2019s charter that blends the mayor\u2019s working group recommendations with the Model City Charter<\/a>. This approach delivers a powerful mayor and a powerful Oakland City Council by embedding a citywide mayor inside a council-manager system. It would put the City Council in the driver\u2019s seat while investing a city-wide elected mayor with significant leadership authority \u2014 including veto power. It also features a professionally trained city manager.<\/p>\n Why do cities overwhelmingly choose professional management? Because it delivers a more transparent<\/a>, responsive, effective and efficient government. Studies show that municipalities with professional city managers experience 57% fewer corruption convictions<\/a> than strong-mayor cities. Governments with city managers boast\u00a0better budget solvency<\/a>, higher bond ratings and lower borrowing costs<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 operating nearly 10% more efficiently<\/a> than their strong-mayor counterparts.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n It is no mystery why 97%\u00a0of California cities<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 and 99 of the Bay Area\u2019s 100 cities (excluding San Francisco, a dual city\/county)\u00a0\u2014 use the professional manager model.\u00a0<\/p>\n Steven Falk twice served as Oakland\u2019s interim city administrator. He is the co-founder of the Oakland Charter Reform Project.<\/p>\n City needs a strong mayor<\/p>\n I spent 24 years working for the city of Oakland \u2014 as a political staffer, a port director, a council member and eight years as mayor. I know this government and community from the inside out. And I can tell you with complete confidence: The current system is broken, and Mayor Barbara Lee\u2019s working group has finally given Oakland a path to fix it.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Here is the core problem: Oakland\u2019s charter gives the mayor responsibility without authority. Voters elect a mayor expecting her to run the city, reduce crime, fix the streets and address homelessness. But the mayor cannot veto a single ordinance. She cannot veto a budget line. When the council has cut police staffing in budget after budget \u2014 even as 67% of Oaklanders support increased staffing<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 the mayor has had no recourse. She gets blamed for outcomes she cannot control. That is not accountability. That is theater.<\/p>\n The working group\u2019s recommendation is straightforward: Give the mayor real executive authority, give the council real oversight tools and let each branch do its job.<\/p>\n Under this proposal, the mayor becomes the clear chief executive, with veto power that\u00a0can be overridden\u00a0with 5 of 7 council votes \u2014 the same structure used by Seattle, Boston and San Diego. The council, meanwhile, gains powers it doesn\u2019t have: an independent budget and legislative analyst office and explicit subpoena authority to compel testimony. The council does not lose power; it gains the tools it needs to do the legislative and oversight work voters expect.<\/p>\n A council-manager alternative sounds appealing in theory. It is widely used because most cities are small with part-time or volunteer elected officials. But SPUR \u2014 the Bay Area\u2019s leading good-government organization \u2014 spent three years studying Oakland governance and concluded explicitly that returning to council-manager government is \u201cnot appropriate or desirable\u201d for a city of Oakland\u2019s size and complexity. Then Mayor Lee convened the working group: 750 residents in public meetings, more than 60 interviews with current and former city officials, 48 academic studies reviewed and months of deliberation facilitated by SPUR and the League of Women Voters. They reached the same conclusion. When Oakland\u2019s two most rigorous, independent governance studies \u2014 conducted years apart, by different teams \u2014 arrive at identical answers, that is not a coincidence. That is the evidence speaking.<\/p>\n There is also the political reality. Recent polls confirm overwhelming support for moving Oakland to a strong-mayor form of government. Most recently, a February poll by the East Bay Polling Institute<\/a> found that 64% of voters support \u201camending the city charter to adopt a strong-mayor system where the mayor serves as chief executive with veto power over the budget and legislation, and allows the city council to override vetoes with a two-thirds vote.\u201d Similarly, the 2025 Pulse of Oakland Poll <\/a>found that 61% of likely voters support a strong-mayor system. Half actively oppose a council-manager government. Only 13% named it their top choice.<\/p>\n Pursuing a council-manager measure would almost certainly fail at the ballot \u2014 squandering election costs and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix Oakland\u2019s charter and the public trust that comes with it.<\/p>\n Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.<\/p>\n