Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
5.2 26-0692 Subject: Proposed Ballot Measure To Reform Oakland's City Charter
From: Office Of The Mayor
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Submitting To The Voters At The November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election A Measure That Would Amend The Oakland City Charter To, Among Other Things (1) Make The Mayor The City's Chief Executive Officer Responsible For Managing City Affairs;
(2) Empower The Council To Confirm The Appointments Of The Directors Of Finance, Human Resources, Public Works, And Transportation;
(3) Empower The Council To Create An Independent Budget And Legislative Analyst's Office To Provide The Council Fiscal And Policy Analysis That Is Objective And Nonpartisan;
(4) Affirm Councilmembers' Right To Request Information And Relay Constituent Concerns, And City Officials' Duty To Respond Promptly;
(5) Empower The Council To Hold Legislative Hearings And Issue Subpoenas;
(6) Create A Mayoral Veto With A Line-Item Budget Veto And A Council Power To Override Any Veto;
(7) Require Councilmembers To Work Full Time And Not Engage In Outside Employment;
(8) Empower The Public Ethics Commission To Align The Mayor's And Councilmembers' Salaries With Those Of Comparable Full-Time Public Officials; And
(9) Require The Publication Of Ordinances Within Fifteen Days Of Passage;
And Directing The City Clerk To Take All Actions Necessary Under Law To Submit This Measure To The Voters At The Election; And Making Appropriate California Environmental Quality Act Findings
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on putting the proposed strong mayor measure on the November ballot, because this needs much more work before it should be voted on.
Why? First, what was missed in this review process? A lot. As one journalist wrote,"The working group was hand-selected and convened by the Mayor, staffed by her office, working from goals she set, guided by facilitators {at least one of whom} ... already favored a strong executive.” Also, the City Council’s raise was hidden in this measure so also not part of the review. At la-east four important questions were not allowed to be reviewed.
Second, why was there no authentic community input process? Apparently to guarantee a certain outcome. I attended the meeting in East Oakland. An earnest presentation by the League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR and a panel of representatives from the working group also spoke about one thing and one thing only: why the strong mayor form of government was the solution to all of Oakland’s problems. There was very little time for public input or comment. In other words, the “community process” was a failure, not open or transparent or participative.
It is time to start over, with an authentic process, with a group of participants who not already allies and donors to the Mayor, and will the full scope of possible topics to be explored. Take the time to do this the right way. Please vote NO tomorrow and reset this process.
While I'm not taking a position on the Charter Amendment itself at this time, I think that it should be decided by the voters and be put on the ballot for the November election. Please vote to do so at this meeting. Thank you.
I’m writing to urge you to support Mayor Lee’s Charter Reform proposal to strengthen accountability and oversight in City Hall.
Oakland’s current governance structure creates confusion around authority, accountability, and responsibility. The Charter reform proposal establishes clearer lines of authority. These recommendations are aligned with extensive and credible public process co-facilitated by SPUR and the league of women voters. Voters are ready for change that will move the City forward. Please support and let the voters decide. Thank you.
Support a vote for Strong Mayor, with an EXCEPTION: for #8 on the Agenda - i.e. the salary increase for Councilmembers. Oakland needs a strong Mayor; the buck has to stop at the Mayor's desk - this is the way.
IMPORTANT: Councilmembers must not vote to increase their salary from the currently approved $114,678 (as of 07/01.2026) to a *minimum* of $183,545 - pegged to San Diego; or more, if pegged to LA) during a time of an admitted Oakland fiscal crisis. Doing to is NOT a good look; the optics are self-defeating and may cause the entire Strong Mayor amendment to FAIL in November.
So far, the CM salary part of the Charter has mostly flown under the public's radar, but it will probably appear front-and-center by opponents who want to defeat Strong Mayor amendment.
INSTEAD:
1) Council should vote a more modest/reasonable increase of no more than 12-15% over $114,678, with future annual cost of living increases pegged to inflation.
OR
2) Council votes to separate #8 from the Charter Amendment, create a SEPARATE ballot that is offered for a vote in November on a proposed salary increase.
It's *fair* to ask for a salary increase if CMs are working full time, which most City Council members are currently doing anyway. City Council membership is hardly a "part-time" job, but please consider the optics. I fear Oakland's voters will balk at the entire measure because the current salary increases will be made to appear as excessive during a time of fiscal crisis.
I support charter reform. Oakland's current system spreads responsibility so thin that no one is accountable. But I have a simple concern: neither proposal before you guarantees that basic services actually improve. Knowing who's in charge is not the same as making sure potholes get fixed. This proposal tells us who holds power. It does not tell us what happens when they fail to use it.
Under a strong mayor system, if your Councilmember is not aligned with the Mayor, your service requests may go to the back of the line. There is nothing in this proposal to prevent that. Before this goes to voters, I ask the Council to answer three questions:
1, How will the City track whether service requests are handled equally across all districts?
2. What happens when a department ignores a Councilmember's request on behalf of a constituent?
3. Who is accountable if services don't improve and how will residents know?
Oaklanders don't just want to know who's in charge. We want to know that being in charge means something.
In previous comments I requested that there be a full fiscal impact analysis for the proposed Ballot Measure . To date, no fiscal analysis has been made. The increases in City Council and Mayor salaries and the establishment of a new "Independent Budget and Legislative Analysts Office within the City Council Office office will all require funding. It is good policy to have that information in advance of placing a Ballot Measure on the ballot or in making any decision that requires new funding.
I urge you to move the proposed charter change to the November ballot. I trust the process, the Charter Reform Working group spend months meeting with community members, council, former council, city administrator, and former city officials among others. I've read the final report and agree that the strong mayor recommendation will be the change that Oakland needs.
SPUR, LWVO, and the working group came to their conclusions after a thorough process. They did not start with an idea in mind, just that change was needed.
Strong mayor is their recommendation and that is what I would like to see Council vote to put on the ballot at Tuesday's meeting.
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on putting the proposed strong mayor measure on the November ballot, because this needs much more work before it should be voted on.
Why? First, what was missed in this review process? A lot. As one journalist wrote,"The working group was hand-selected and convened by the Mayor, staffed by her office, working from goals she set, guided by facilitators {at least one of whom} ... already favored a strong executive.” Also, the City Council’s raise was hidden in this measure so also not part of the review. At la-east four important questions were not allowed to be reviewed.
Second, why was there no authentic community input process? Apparently to guarantee a certain outcome. I attended the meeting in East Oakland. An earnest presentation by the League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR and a panel of representatives from the working group also spoke about one thing and one thing only: why the strong mayor form of government was the solution to all of Oakland’s problems. There was very little time for public input or comment. In other words, the “community process” was a failure, not open or transparent or participative.
It is time to start over, with an authentic process, with a group of participants who not already allies and donors to the Mayor, and will the full scope of possible topics to be explored. Take the time to do this the right way. Please vote NO tomorrow and reset this process.
While I'm not taking a position on the Charter Amendment itself at this time, I think that it should be decided by the voters and be put on the ballot for the November election. Please vote to do so at this meeting. Thank you.
I’m writing to urge you to support Mayor Lee’s Charter Reform proposal to strengthen accountability and oversight in City Hall.
Oakland’s current governance structure creates confusion around authority, accountability, and responsibility. The Charter reform proposal establishes clearer lines of authority. These recommendations are aligned with extensive and credible public process co-facilitated by SPUR and the league of women voters. Voters are ready for change that will move the City forward. Please support and let the voters decide. Thank you.
Support a vote for Strong Mayor, with an EXCEPTION: for #8 on the Agenda - i.e. the salary increase for Councilmembers. Oakland needs a strong Mayor; the buck has to stop at the Mayor's desk - this is the way.
IMPORTANT: Councilmembers must not vote to increase their salary from the currently approved $114,678 (as of 07/01.2026) to a *minimum* of $183,545 - pegged to San Diego; or more, if pegged to LA) during a time of an admitted Oakland fiscal crisis. Doing to is NOT a good look; the optics are self-defeating and may cause the entire Strong Mayor amendment to FAIL in November.
So far, the CM salary part of the Charter has mostly flown under the public's radar, but it will probably appear front-and-center by opponents who want to defeat Strong Mayor amendment.
INSTEAD:
1) Council should vote a more modest/reasonable increase of no more than 12-15% over $114,678, with future annual cost of living increases pegged to inflation.
OR
2) Council votes to separate #8 from the Charter Amendment, create a SEPARATE ballot that is offered for a vote in November on a proposed salary increase.
It's *fair* to ask for a salary increase if CMs are working full time, which most City Council members are currently doing anyway. City Council membership is hardly a "part-time" job, but please consider the optics. I fear Oakland's voters will balk at the entire measure because the current salary increases will be made to appear as excessive during a time of fiscal crisis.
I support charter reform. Oakland's current system spreads responsibility so thin that no one is accountable. But I have a simple concern: neither proposal before you guarantees that basic services actually improve. Knowing who's in charge is not the same as making sure potholes get fixed. This proposal tells us who holds power. It does not tell us what happens when they fail to use it.
Under a strong mayor system, if your Councilmember is not aligned with the Mayor, your service requests may go to the back of the line. There is nothing in this proposal to prevent that. Before this goes to voters, I ask the Council to answer three questions:
1, How will the City track whether service requests are handled equally across all districts?
2. What happens when a department ignores a Councilmember's request on behalf of a constituent?
3. Who is accountable if services don't improve and how will residents know?
Oaklanders don't just want to know who's in charge. We want to know that being in charge means something.
In previous comments I requested that there be a full fiscal impact analysis for the proposed Ballot Measure . To date, no fiscal analysis has been made. The increases in City Council and Mayor salaries and the establishment of a new "Independent Budget and Legislative Analysts Office within the City Council Office office will all require funding. It is good policy to have that information in advance of placing a Ballot Measure on the ballot or in making any decision that requires new funding.
I urge you to move the proposed charter change to the November ballot. I trust the process, the Charter Reform Working group spend months meeting with community members, council, former council, city administrator, and former city officials among others. I've read the final report and agree that the strong mayor recommendation will be the change that Oakland needs.
SPUR, LWVO, and the working group came to their conclusions after a thorough process. They did not start with an idea in mind, just that change was needed.
Strong mayor is their recommendation and that is what I would like to see Council vote to put on the ballot at Tuesday's meeting.