Mayor Barbara Lee’s eight-member panel consists of her transition advisers, her campaign’s institutional backers, a funder of its own process, and veterans of the offices that run the current charter.
Justin -- Thank you for your comment. The article simply lays out the connections, and does not state that anything nefarious is happening.
As Oakland Report reported on June 2, the mayor's decision to use a hand-selected "working group" instead of a more formal advisory body (which would be subject to open-meeting laws) is worthy of scrutiny. Here's a relevant excerpt from our June 2 article:
"The mayor’s decision to appoint a ‘working group’ instead of an official city advisory body was a critical component of the overall process — one that almost inevitably would lead to a recommendation favored by and largely benefiting the mayor.
"Most public bodies in California are required by law to conduct their business in the open. The state’s open-meetings government ‘sunshine’ law — the Ralph M. Brown Act — forces city councils, their committees, and advisory bodies to post agendas in advance, let the public watch them deliberate, post official minutes of proceedings, and keep no decisions hidden.
"But the law has a well-known gap. It generally does not cover a body that a single official creates on their own, as opposed to one a city council establishes by formal vote.
"The mayor’s political charter reform ‘working group’ exploited that gap. Mayor Lee convened it herself, as part of her 100-day plan; the city council never created it by resolution, and the council neither appointed nor confirmed a single member."
Thank you Sean and the Oakland Report. This article is essential. I hope the Strong Mayor is defeated today in the City Hall Meeting. Mindy Pechenuk, for Oakland Mayor 2026
While I dont personally support the proposed strong mayor initiative (Im a Council-Manager kinda guy), I think it's not exactly surprising that a Mayor who campaigned on looking into Strong Mayor reforms would assemble a group to do so that she feels confident in. Honestly, I think the outrage here is a little feigned. I mean, when was the last time you made a decision by asking a bunch of people you dont have confidence in? And then, of course, the Council's the ultimate decionmaker about what goes on the ballot, and despite laudable attempts by CM Unger and others to go the better way, the Council went with this one. I dont like the policy, but I dont see anything nefarious here.
Justin -- Thank you for your comment. The article simply lays out the connections, and does not state that anything nefarious is happening.
As Oakland Report reported on June 2, the mayor's decision to use a hand-selected "working group" instead of a more formal advisory body (which would be subject to open-meeting laws) is worthy of scrutiny. Here's a relevant excerpt from our June 2 article:
"The mayor’s decision to appoint a ‘working group’ instead of an official city advisory body was a critical component of the overall process — one that almost inevitably would lead to a recommendation favored by and largely benefiting the mayor.
"Most public bodies in California are required by law to conduct their business in the open. The state’s open-meetings government ‘sunshine’ law — the Ralph M. Brown Act — forces city councils, their committees, and advisory bodies to post agendas in advance, let the public watch them deliberate, post official minutes of proceedings, and keep no decisions hidden.
"But the law has a well-known gap. It generally does not cover a body that a single official creates on their own, as opposed to one a city council establishes by formal vote.
"The mayor’s political charter reform ‘working group’ exploited that gap. Mayor Lee convened it herself, as part of her 100-day plan; the city council never created it by resolution, and the council neither appointed nor confirmed a single member."
Justin -- Thank you for your comment. The article simply lays out the connections, and does not state that anything nefarious is happening.
As Oakland Report reported on June 2, the mayor's decision to use a hand-selected "working group" instead of a more formal advisory body (which would be subject to open-meeting laws) is worthy of scrutiny. Here's a relevant excerpt from our June 2 article:
"The mayor’s decision to appoint a ‘working group’ instead of an official city advisory body was a critical component of the overall process — one that almost inevitably would lead to a recommendation favored by and largely benefiting the mayor.
"Most public bodies in California are required by law to conduct their business in the open. The state’s open-meetings government ‘sunshine’ law — the Ralph M. Brown Act — forces city councils, their committees, and advisory bodies to post agendas in advance, let the public watch them deliberate, post official minutes of proceedings, and keep no decisions hidden.
"But the law has a well-known gap. It generally does not cover a body that a single official creates on their own, as opposed to one a city council establishes by formal vote.
"The mayor’s political charter reform ‘working group’ exploited that gap. Mayor Lee convened it herself, as part of her 100-day plan; the city council never created it by resolution, and the council neither appointed nor confirmed a single member."
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/oaklands-charter-reform-process
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
how "progressive."
Thank you Sean and the Oakland Report. This article is essential. I hope the Strong Mayor is defeated today in the City Hall Meeting. Mindy Pechenuk, for Oakland Mayor 2026
While I dont personally support the proposed strong mayor initiative (Im a Council-Manager kinda guy), I think it's not exactly surprising that a Mayor who campaigned on looking into Strong Mayor reforms would assemble a group to do so that she feels confident in. Honestly, I think the outrage here is a little feigned. I mean, when was the last time you made a decision by asking a bunch of people you dont have confidence in? And then, of course, the Council's the ultimate decionmaker about what goes on the ballot, and despite laudable attempts by CM Unger and others to go the better way, the Council went with this one. I dont like the policy, but I dont see anything nefarious here.
Justin -- Thank you for your comment. The article simply lays out the connections, and does not state that anything nefarious is happening.
As Oakland Report reported on June 2, the mayor's decision to use a hand-selected "working group" instead of a more formal advisory body (which would be subject to open-meeting laws) is worthy of scrutiny. Here's a relevant excerpt from our June 2 article:
"The mayor’s decision to appoint a ‘working group’ instead of an official city advisory body was a critical component of the overall process — one that almost inevitably would lead to a recommendation favored by and largely benefiting the mayor.
"Most public bodies in California are required by law to conduct their business in the open. The state’s open-meetings government ‘sunshine’ law — the Ralph M. Brown Act — forces city councils, their committees, and advisory bodies to post agendas in advance, let the public watch them deliberate, post official minutes of proceedings, and keep no decisions hidden.
"But the law has a well-known gap. It generally does not cover a body that a single official creates on their own, as opposed to one a city council establishes by formal vote.
"The mayor’s political charter reform ‘working group’ exploited that gap. Mayor Lee convened it herself, as part of her 100-day plan; the city council never created it by resolution, and the council neither appointed nor confirmed a single member."
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/oaklands-charter-reform-process
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.