<\/p>\n
Mayor Barbara Lee speaks during a press conference announcing the appointment of Assistant Chief James Beere to Interim Chief of Police at City Hall in Oakland on Friday, Nov. 14, 2025.<\/p>\n
Jungho Kim\/For the S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n
In dozens of meetings and workshops over the past year, Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee has been building consensus among residents for a charter amendment that would expand mayoral authority<\/a> \u2014 giving the mayor greater power to deliver on campaign promises and bring more accountability to city government.<\/p>\n But it appears she may not have the backing of the group most crucial to getting the reform across the finish line: the City Council.<\/p>\n Amending the city’s charter requires voter approval, and the most direct path is for the council to place the measure on the ballot.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Council President Kevin Jenkins said he wants voters to have two options \u2014 Lee’s strong-mayor reform, and an alternative backed by a former Oakland city administrator that would preserve the council\u2019s strength.<\/p>\n “I’m interested in bridging the gap by putting two options on the ballot,” Jenkins said. “We need to give voters a choice on how Oakland’s government will work going forward.”<\/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 Most California cities operate under one of two models: a council-manager system, in which an elected council sets policy and appoints a city manager to handle day-to-day operations, or a strong-mayor system, in which the mayor holds veto power and appoints core city officials.\u00a0<\/p>\n Oakland currently falls somewhere in between. The mayor acts as chief executive and appoints the city administrator, but cannot vote on council matters except to break ties. She proposes a budget, but ultimately council makes a final decision on it. The city administrator<\/a> manages city departments and reports to the mayor, yet is also charged with implementing the council’s directives.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Since the model changed when Jerry Brown became mayor in 1999, it is rare to even see the city\u2019s top elected official attend council meetings.<\/p>\n Lee is advocating for a stronger mayoral role. It\u2019s a position she arrived at after months of working group sessions led by the League of Women Voters and government think tank SPUR. In their proposal, the mayor would gain greater control over the city’s bureaucracy and veto power over legislation and budgets, which the council could still override with a two-thirds majority.\u00a0<\/p>\n Oakland Council President Kevin Jenkins stands for a portrait in January 2025.<\/p>\n Lea Suzuki\/S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n The council would also gain new tools: an independent budget and legislative analyst office, and subpoena authority to compel witness testimony. San Francisco, for example, recently used its power to compel the former leaders of the San Francisco Parks Alliance<\/a> to testify about the nonprofit\u2019s collapse<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Lee declined to comment on Jenkins’ idea of competing ballot measures, but pointed to positive polling from SPUR that shows that 58% percent of 600 Oakland voters surveyed said they were in favor of key tenets of Lee\u2019s proposal.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n It\u2019s rare that elected officials want to see their own powers weakened, and Oakland’s council is no exception.\u00a0<\/p>\n During a Thursday committee meeting, Council Members Ken Houston and Rowena Brown voiced their support for a so-called \u201cthird option\u201d \u2014\u00a0a hybrid that would largely preserve the status quo, but the mayor would attend council meetings, help shape policy and hold veto power, without fully consolidating executive authority. In an interview, Council Member Zac Unger said that he remains \u201copen-minded\u201d about Oakland\u2019s system of governance, but isn\u2019t opposed to voters getting a say.\u00a0<\/p>\n That \u201cthird option\u201d is being advocated for by the longtime Bay Area city manager-for-hire Steven Falk, who served two three-month stints in Oakland<\/a>. Though Falk originally pushed for a straightforward council-manager system like those in place in Sunnyvale, Hayward and Redwood City, he said his group, The Oakland Charter Reform Project, recently amended its stance, finding that \u201cOakland could benefit from a central figure that serves as a check\u201d on the council, Falk said.<\/p>\n But political scientist Corey Cook, who studies electoral reform and served on Lee\u2019s charter reform working group, has warned that another hybrid model would simply repeat Oakland’s past mistakes.<\/p>\n “This is how we got here in Oakland \u2014 by putting together this mishmash of systems that doesn’t actually work,” Cook said. “Why would we do that again?”<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n<\/p>\n