Oakland city council is set to consider a charter amendment that would give city councilmembers substantial pay raises as part of a charter reform ballot measure along with other changes.
This consistent level of City Council insanity should not be exploited for political gain. We working people of Oakland need fewer politics & a lot more simple competency.
Alex thank you for writing this. I feel the biggest challenge, "no one cares". You put it in your article that the incentive is to keep your job. The people of Oakland need someone, or a group of people, who aren't afraid to "get fired". I'm all for paying people a lot of money if there is a correlation of pay to success metrics. For example, we reduce potholes by x% which increased lawsuits by y%. It's a tricky situation, but I feel the entire council, especially mine, are in it for themselves.
Oakland voted up term limits, FYI. "As of late 2022, Oakland City Council members are limited to serving a maximum of three consecutive four-year terms (12 years total) in a single council position. Previously, there were no specific term limits for council members. Council members are elected for four-year terms."
I support a reasonable full-time pay scale for city council work. This topic should not be confused with the high compensation that the 1000s of city employees receive. For a large city, the council job should demand a person's full attention. A far less diverse and arguably less qualified field will end up running for those offices if volunteerism is expected. For a close example, look no further than the board of directors of our East Bay Regional Parks District. It is the largest park district in the country and should constitute a full-time job. People have complained about the lack of diversity of the board. But the job only includes a stipend of a few thousand dollars a year. The result is that the board is mostly made up of retirees or people who view it as a side gig.
Excellent article by Alex and thank you again Oakland Report. I agree with this article. Oakland does not need to have a full time city council, nor does the city council need a pay raise. What we need is a city council and mayor who actually know how to govern this city and actually cares about our Oaklanders. We have too much graft, and policies that are driven more by ideology, rather than American System principles. No to pay raise, no to Barbara Lee's Strong Mayor push, no to full time city council. Time for real leadership-Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026. electmindy.com
If you are full time, you are entitled to those benefits but the article makes it sound dirty.Is this an article or an opinion piece? It's dripping with bias. A pay raise could be tied to tighter term limits. It's not unreasonable for a city of this size to have full-time council members. I'd rather have Janani focused on the government than her music career. And This opinion piece also talks the largest impact to salaries instead of the most likely - very unscientific for a paper purported to be based on science. LA is so much larger than Oakland, it's not a fair comparison. It's comparing the Ballers to the Dodgers. I agree we don't want professional politicians, but even 12 years is too long on the council. Just look now at how many council members run for higher office, do you seriously think making them full-time is going to make that any worse? I think everyone who termed out recently ran for something else except Rebecca Kaplan who was gifted a job that seems to do nothing but gets paid $150k/yr. This could have been a reasoned opinion piece or an actual piece of journalism. For shame.
Being a councilmember is an extremely difficult and hefty role - their pay should absolutely be increased to be commensurate with the work and decisions they make for the city. It's also fair to imagine that a higher salary could attract qualified candidates in the future so they wont have to choose between this role and their livelihoods.
I'm not opposed to the idea of prohibiting outside employment and granting them benefits as full time city employees and a cost of living adjustment, but matching Los Angeles city council salaries is ridiculous. Los Angeles council members are the highest paid in the entire country, not just the state. If I'm not mistaken Oakland council members are already the third highest paid in the state. So benchmarking against LA and SD , the only two cities that pay council members more than Oakland does, is pretty shady.
Is this the paper of Lyndon La Rouche supporters and homophobic transphobic contributors now? Mindy and Seneca? It might be time to cancel. For shame Oakland Report. Who exactly is your audience?
This consistent level of City Council insanity should not be exploited for political gain. We working people of Oakland need fewer politics & a lot more simple competency.
Alex thank you for writing this. I feel the biggest challenge, "no one cares". You put it in your article that the incentive is to keep your job. The people of Oakland need someone, or a group of people, who aren't afraid to "get fired". I'm all for paying people a lot of money if there is a correlation of pay to success metrics. For example, we reduce potholes by x% which increased lawsuits by y%. It's a tricky situation, but I feel the entire council, especially mine, are in it for themselves.
Oakland voted up term limits, FYI. "As of late 2022, Oakland City Council members are limited to serving a maximum of three consecutive four-year terms (12 years total) in a single council position. Previously, there were no specific term limits for council members. Council members are elected for four-year terms."
I support a reasonable full-time pay scale for city council work. This topic should not be confused with the high compensation that the 1000s of city employees receive. For a large city, the council job should demand a person's full attention. A far less diverse and arguably less qualified field will end up running for those offices if volunteerism is expected. For a close example, look no further than the board of directors of our East Bay Regional Parks District. It is the largest park district in the country and should constitute a full-time job. People have complained about the lack of diversity of the board. But the job only includes a stipend of a few thousand dollars a year. The result is that the board is mostly made up of retirees or people who view it as a side gig.
Well said.
Excellent article by Alex and thank you again Oakland Report. I agree with this article. Oakland does not need to have a full time city council, nor does the city council need a pay raise. What we need is a city council and mayor who actually know how to govern this city and actually cares about our Oaklanders. We have too much graft, and policies that are driven more by ideology, rather than American System principles. No to pay raise, no to Barbara Lee's Strong Mayor push, no to full time city council. Time for real leadership-Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026. electmindy.com
If you are full time, you are entitled to those benefits but the article makes it sound dirty.Is this an article or an opinion piece? It's dripping with bias. A pay raise could be tied to tighter term limits. It's not unreasonable for a city of this size to have full-time council members. I'd rather have Janani focused on the government than her music career. And This opinion piece also talks the largest impact to salaries instead of the most likely - very unscientific for a paper purported to be based on science. LA is so much larger than Oakland, it's not a fair comparison. It's comparing the Ballers to the Dodgers. I agree we don't want professional politicians, but even 12 years is too long on the council. Just look now at how many council members run for higher office, do you seriously think making them full-time is going to make that any worse? I think everyone who termed out recently ran for something else except Rebecca Kaplan who was gifted a job that seems to do nothing but gets paid $150k/yr. This could have been a reasoned opinion piece or an actual piece of journalism. For shame.
Being a councilmember is an extremely difficult and hefty role - their pay should absolutely be increased to be commensurate with the work and decisions they make for the city. It's also fair to imagine that a higher salary could attract qualified candidates in the future so they wont have to choose between this role and their livelihoods.
I'm not opposed to the idea of prohibiting outside employment and granting them benefits as full time city employees and a cost of living adjustment, but matching Los Angeles city council salaries is ridiculous. Los Angeles council members are the highest paid in the entire country, not just the state. If I'm not mistaken Oakland council members are already the third highest paid in the state. So benchmarking against LA and SD , the only two cities that pay council members more than Oakland does, is pretty shady.
Is this the paper of Lyndon La Rouche supporters and homophobic transphobic contributors now? Mindy and Seneca? It might be time to cancel. For shame Oakland Report. Who exactly is your audience?