Explaining Measure EE, which would shift Oakland to a strong mayor government

When something goes wrong with a city service in Oakland, who has the authority to fix it, and who should residents hold responsible?  

The answers could become clearer under a proposed charter reform voters will decide on Nov. 3. If approved, the mayor would serve as the city’s chief executive, while the council’s powers would also be expanded. To make those changes easier to understand, here’s how the current system works.

Current system

Oakland operates under a hybrid system that combines elements of strong-mayor and council-manager governments. Under the current structure, the mayor does not oversee the city’s daily operations. The mayor can’t veto legislation and can only vote to break a City Council tie. The mayor proposes a budget, but the council has final authority over its adoption. The City Council, on the other hand, is responsible for adopting city laws and policies, but can’t give orders to city employees. 

Supporters of charter reform, including Mayor Barbara Lee, argue that the current division of power makes it unclear who is responsible for city decisions and limits the mayor’s ability to put policies into action. Lee created a task force to examine possible changes to the city’s government, which issued its recommendations in January. She and City Council President Kevin Jenkins later introduced a reform proposal that the council voted to place on the ballot. 

Breaking down charter reform

Changes who runs departments: The city administrator currently has authority over city departments and is responsible for running city services including the  police, fire, and parks departments and public works. Under the reform, the administrator’s authority would be reduced and the mayor would manage most city departments and affairs. The City Council would oversee the mayor’s administration through hearings and subpoena power. 

Gives council appointment powers: The council would have the power to approve key department appointments, an authority it does not currently have. The city administrator’s nominees for directors of human resources and finance, as well as the heads of departments overseeing city infrastructure, would require council confirmation. 

Adds a legislative analyst: Currently, the council relies on information from the same city departments that help the mayor prepare the budget. A new independent legislative analyst would give the council its own source of professional analysis to independently review the mayor’s budget and other proposals. The analyst also could examine the costs and broader effects of proposed laws, including whether they would require additional resources or conflict with existing laws.

Gives the mayor veto power: The mayor would gain veto power over most legislation passed by the City Council. While five council members could pass most legislation, six votes would be needed to override a mayoral veto. The mayor would also gain line-item veto power over the annual budget and be able to reject specific changes the council makes to the mayor’s proposed budget without rejecting the entire budget. The council could override a line-item veto with six votes.

Council members would get full-time pay: Oakland’s charter does not specify whether council service is full time or part time. Council members can receive annual raises of up to 5%. Under the reform, council members would become full time, and the Public Ethics Commission would set their salaries based on comparable full time public officials in California. The city auditor estimated salary and benefit costs could increase by $36,000 to $108,000 per councilmember in the first year, or about $288,000 to $867,000 for the entire City Council. The final salaries would be set by the Public Ethics Commission.

What charter reform would mean

Gail Wallace, chair of the Oakland League of Women Voters Action Committee, said the League supports the reform because it could clarify who is in charge and give city officials clearer authority to make changes.

However, opponents argue that giving the mayor more executive power could make City Hall less transparent and increase the risk of political favoritism. They worry that giving the mayor greater control over department appointments could allow future mayors to favor political allies when filling city positions. 

Opponents also say the changes could lead to political gridlock. Under the reform, the mayor would gain the power to veto City Council actions but would no longer be able to cast a tie-breaking vote on the council. Critics say these changes could make it harder for the mayor and council to reach agreement and take action on city issues. 

They also question changes to councilmembers’ compensation, which would result in higher personnel costs for the city. 

Steven Falk, a lecturer at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy and a former Oakland interim city administrator, said the reform could weaken the council’s ability to hold the administration accountable.

“The City Council will not select the city administrator. That will be an appointment by the mayor,” he said. “And likewise, the mayor will be able to veto virtually any act or decision made by the City Council.”

Falk also pointed out, based on academic research, that a strong-mayor system has a higher risk of corruption. 

Oakland voter Ennis Jones opposes the reform. “I think the amount of power that the mayor currently has should be adequate for anything,”  said Jones. 

The charter sets out the structure of city government, but how that structure works in practice also depends on the people elected to office and how they use their authority.

“The strong-mayor system establishes the condition for effective leadership,” Wallace said.

Falk said reform could improve Oakland if voters elect a good mayor. “But if the voters choose a bad or a corrupt person,” he said, “Oakland will be far worse off.”

---

Should Alameda County raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour? Voters will decide.