The elephant in the room is the Public Employee Unions whose agendas override the interests of the taxpayers who foot the bill. None of these reforms will matter unless we dissolve union power. As it stands now, Oakland politicians and unions are on the same side of the negotiating table and rig the system for their benefit. Case in point: the corrupt measure to jack up property taxes based on the fraudulent financial fiction of a surplus budget.
It does seem one-sided. This may be outdated thinking, but in a city with a more robust commercial and industrial base, there would be a "conservative" political bloc to counteract the "liberal" faction backed by local trade unions. (I put those words in quotes because I don't believe they align with real conservatism and liberal thinking) Unfortunately, Oakland has very few big businesses left, and I'm not sure even those few are that engaged in politics. What we DO have are moderate lefties, left of lefties, and extremists (like the communist who ran for mayor recently). The moderates now become the "conservatives" wanting more law and order, and fiscal accountability.
I want to compare charter options with some use cases.
Currently, the city administrator is planning to reorganize parking without approval of council, moving parking enforcement from Transportation to Finance, and moving abandoned from Transportation to Police. City administrator states that council approval is not required, even though the current organization was determined by council.
As this post says, the council has the power to demand an informational report, which it has done so. When the first report was inadequate, further questions were asked, and another report is being prepared.
Good news is that council can continue pushing.
If council has the will, it could amend the municipal code so that the organization is specified, but council seems to believe that this is an extreme step.
Under strong mayor model, would council still have the ability to demand information report? If the mayor does not take an interest in specific city administrator's actions, what are the options? A recall seems extreme for policy disagreements.
Under Model City Charter, what would be the steps if the council does not approve of city administrator's actions? Are there council actions short of firing the city administrator?
I saw some other problems.
The working group does not seem to know how the current council and staff works. At one of the meetings, a group member stated that council members do not have staff devoted to policy. This is false. Mostly council members do have a staff member devoted to policy.
However, there were some good ideas. Strengthening council is interesting. Increasing council salary and prohibiting outside employment might be a good way to increase council involvement. Increasing money for council staff. This may be a good idea whether we go with strong mayor or Model City Charter.
Steve’s argument falls apart from the jump because he’s conflating two completely different things: the quality of elected officials and the system they operate in. Those are not the same.
Yes—any system will fail if you put corrupt or incompetent people in charge. That’s obvious. But that has nothing to do with whether the system itself creates clear lines of authority and accountability. That’s the real issue—and it’s the one he avoids.
Oakland’s structure blurs responsibility. Power is fragmented, decisions get slow-walked, and when things go wrong, nobody owns it. Everyone points fingers, and nothing changes.
Then he doubles down with an apples-to-oranges comparison, lumping Oakland in with smaller, low-complexity cities that don’t have major economies, international ports, or Oakland’s level of governance challenges. That’s not serious analysis.
Compare Oakland to its actual peers—Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco—large, complex, port-driven cities. They all run strong mayor systems. That’s the league Oakland is in.
And here’s the kicker: the SPUR report he’s citing doesn’t support his argument—it undermines it. It explicitly identifies the core problem as blurred accountability, weak executive authority, and confusion over who’s actually in charge. The mayor lacks power to execute, the city manager isn’t directly accountable to voters, and the public is left in the dark.
SPUR’s conclusion is clear: Oakland’s hybrid system is dysfunctional and needs stronger, more coherent executive leadership.
So no, this isn’t about counting how many cities use one system or another. It’s about what works in cities that actually look like Oakland. And in those cities, strong mayor systems dominate for a reason—clear authority, clear accountability, and the ability to actually govern.
Long Beach is the one notable exception. But one example doesn’t disprove the rule—and it certainly doesn’t justify a system that isn’t working.
Nothing is really funny about Oakland's politics, since they're a complete dumpster fire - but this is on the edge of funny. Falk and his group pushed hard for charter reform, and now that they're not getting what they want they're pushing hard for the public to defeat it. Killing the infant before it gets out of the cradle. You can't have it both ways...Perhaps moot since it's most likely destined to fail at the ballot box with the public pretty unlikely to go for it, but here's the answer to 'be careful what you wish for'...I urged Falk to wait until the 28' election cycle, when you might have a more stable executive in place to lobby the public for reform. Instead what we're seeing is an attempted power grab by another mostly incompetent mayor. More good times in Oakland's governance....
I wish the city would focus on the actual issues and not on the governance. Everybody in Oakland wants safety, clean streets, potholes fixed and support for business.
I don’t think it matters which district you’re in the issues are the same. If we all agree on the priorities, then it seems to be we don’t have to have debates about which district votes or doesn’t vote.
The elephant in the room is the Public Employee Unions whose agendas override the interests of the taxpayers who foot the bill. None of these reforms will matter unless we dissolve union power. As it stands now, Oakland politicians and unions are on the same side of the negotiating table and rig the system for their benefit. Case in point: the corrupt measure to jack up property taxes based on the fraudulent financial fiction of a surplus budget.
It does seem one-sided. This may be outdated thinking, but in a city with a more robust commercial and industrial base, there would be a "conservative" political bloc to counteract the "liberal" faction backed by local trade unions. (I put those words in quotes because I don't believe they align with real conservatism and liberal thinking) Unfortunately, Oakland has very few big businesses left, and I'm not sure even those few are that engaged in politics. What we DO have are moderate lefties, left of lefties, and extremists (like the communist who ran for mayor recently). The moderates now become the "conservatives" wanting more law and order, and fiscal accountability.
I want to compare charter options with some use cases.
Currently, the city administrator is planning to reorganize parking without approval of council, moving parking enforcement from Transportation to Finance, and moving abandoned from Transportation to Police. City administrator states that council approval is not required, even though the current organization was determined by council.
As this post says, the council has the power to demand an informational report, which it has done so. When the first report was inadequate, further questions were asked, and another report is being prepared.
Good news is that council can continue pushing.
If council has the will, it could amend the municipal code so that the organization is specified, but council seems to believe that this is an extreme step.
Under strong mayor model, would council still have the ability to demand information report? If the mayor does not take an interest in specific city administrator's actions, what are the options? A recall seems extreme for policy disagreements.
Under Model City Charter, what would be the steps if the council does not approve of city administrator's actions? Are there council actions short of firing the city administrator?
I saw some other problems.
The working group does not seem to know how the current council and staff works. At one of the meetings, a group member stated that council members do not have staff devoted to policy. This is false. Mostly council members do have a staff member devoted to policy.
However, there were some good ideas. Strengthening council is interesting. Increasing council salary and prohibiting outside employment might be a good way to increase council involvement. Increasing money for council staff. This may be a good idea whether we go with strong mayor or Model City Charter.
Steve’s argument falls apart from the jump because he’s conflating two completely different things: the quality of elected officials and the system they operate in. Those are not the same.
Yes—any system will fail if you put corrupt or incompetent people in charge. That’s obvious. But that has nothing to do with whether the system itself creates clear lines of authority and accountability. That’s the real issue—and it’s the one he avoids.
Oakland’s structure blurs responsibility. Power is fragmented, decisions get slow-walked, and when things go wrong, nobody owns it. Everyone points fingers, and nothing changes.
Then he doubles down with an apples-to-oranges comparison, lumping Oakland in with smaller, low-complexity cities that don’t have major economies, international ports, or Oakland’s level of governance challenges. That’s not serious analysis.
Compare Oakland to its actual peers—Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco—large, complex, port-driven cities. They all run strong mayor systems. That’s the league Oakland is in.
And here’s the kicker: the SPUR report he’s citing doesn’t support his argument—it undermines it. It explicitly identifies the core problem as blurred accountability, weak executive authority, and confusion over who’s actually in charge. The mayor lacks power to execute, the city manager isn’t directly accountable to voters, and the public is left in the dark.
SPUR’s conclusion is clear: Oakland’s hybrid system is dysfunctional and needs stronger, more coherent executive leadership.
So no, this isn’t about counting how many cities use one system or another. It’s about what works in cities that actually look like Oakland. And in those cities, strong mayor systems dominate for a reason—clear authority, clear accountability, and the ability to actually govern.
Long Beach is the one notable exception. But one example doesn’t disprove the rule—and it certainly doesn’t justify a system that isn’t working.
Nothing is really funny about Oakland's politics, since they're a complete dumpster fire - but this is on the edge of funny. Falk and his group pushed hard for charter reform, and now that they're not getting what they want they're pushing hard for the public to defeat it. Killing the infant before it gets out of the cradle. You can't have it both ways...Perhaps moot since it's most likely destined to fail at the ballot box with the public pretty unlikely to go for it, but here's the answer to 'be careful what you wish for'...I urged Falk to wait until the 28' election cycle, when you might have a more stable executive in place to lobby the public for reform. Instead what we're seeing is an attempted power grab by another mostly incompetent mayor. More good times in Oakland's governance....
I wish the city would focus on the actual issues and not on the governance. Everybody in Oakland wants safety, clean streets, potholes fixed and support for business.
I don’t think it matters which district you’re in the issues are the same. If we all agree on the priorities, then it seems to be we don’t have to have debates about which district votes or doesn’t vote.