I guess I am more concerned about the salaries and benefits of the large number of city employees than the handful of council members. The increase in city costs due to the council pay raises appears to be less than one tenth of one percent of the annual city budget.
Just maybe the pay increase will help keep them honest.
Mike, thank you for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report. Yes, the aggregated compensation of rank-and-file employees is the largest portion of the city’s operating budget, by far. (This is understandable to a degree, because the city ultimately is a service organization.)
It remains to be seen whether giving pay raises to city council will improve the city’s leverage in its negotiations with public employee unions about their demands for more compensation.
Regarding the potential effects of council pay raises on council members’ honesty, that is an interesting question that each Oaklander can weigh for themselves.
Thank you again for your comment; it is very much appreciated.
Sean, you bring up the question - would an increase in salaries make the city council more effective in negotiating collective bargaining agreements? Surely it’s a rhetorical question. The fox is already in the hen house - between past affiliations (Unger was the Firefighter Union President FFS) and union campaign contributions both individually and through PAC funding, the answer is surely no - and everyone knows that. If our elected officials really wanted to focus on costs saving for the taxpayer and specifically addressing labor costs, they would simply recuse themselves from these negotiations. What do you think the answer to that question would be?
Viola, thank you for your additional comment, but it is a deflection. The potential council pay raises are a key component of the measure, not covered elsewhere much, if at all, and is therefore notable. Thank you again for commenting; your interest is appreciated -- even when it doesn't address the substance of the matter.
It's a little strange to look at this question almost exclusively through the lens of cost per resident. I understand the value of asking about the cost to taxpayers, but this calculation will make smaller cities like Oakland look like outliers simply because they have fewer residents. Long Beach is also cited as a comparison point, but Long Beach City Council members are part-time positions, and you are talking about a change to full-time positions in Oakland (at least as I understand it).
I think that you hit on another topic that deserves consideration however - if Measure EE passes and workload / responsibility of the council does decrease, should council positions be classified as full time?
There's another larger question you don't address - what is reasonable pay for public servants? On one hand we want to be responsible with government spending, but on the other we want to attract talent to government and so pay needs to meet some floor. $114,000 as a base salary for someone living in Oakland is much lower than what many high-achievers would consider attractive.
All this said, I do think compensation is a worthy discussion and I did not know this was part of Measure EE and I'm glad you brought this topic to the attention of many of us.
Hi, KP -- Thank you for your comment, it is appreciated. The article looks at the proposed council pay raises from few different angles, including by noting the city auditor's estimate of their total dollar value, by comparing the council's current pay to the median income in Oakland overall, and by noting the council pay in other cities the mayor's working group cited as examples in its report.
Your question about reducing the council members' responsibilities while increasing their pay is a good one, and is one that Oaklanders can weigh for themselves.
The same goes for your other good question about what is a reasonable level of pay. The article provides some benchmarks for readers to consider, such as the council's current salary and benefits, the median income in Oakland, and the council pay rates in some other cities.
Thank you again for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report.
Why would you assume that an independent body such as the Public Ethics Commission would go for the highest salaries? This is grasping for straws!! Salaries for securing full time attention should be the least of our worries in Oakland. How about focusing on getting things done!
Viola, thank you for your comment, but it isn't supported by the evidence. The article says: "When setting the city attorney’s pay this April, the [PEC] surveyed the four California cities above and the four below Oakland in population: San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, and Long Beach above; Bakersfield, Anaheim, Stockton, and Riverside below. Apply that same lens to council pay, and the highest-paid full-time legislative body among those peers is San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, at $175,370. Matching it would raise Oakland council pay about 54% — roughly $228,000 per year with benefits."
The article continues:
"There is also precedent for a bigger jump. In 2022, voters shifted the city attorney’s salary from a council decision to PEC benchmarking (Measure X). The commission’s first benchmarked adjustment, in 2023, raised that salary 26 percent. This year, the PEC raised the city attorney’s pay 5.4%, to $338,291 — and raised the council’s 5.0%, the most its inflation cap allows."
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
I guess I am more concerned about the salaries and benefits of the large number of city employees than the handful of council members. The increase in city costs due to the council pay raises appears to be less than one tenth of one percent of the annual city budget.
Just maybe the pay increase will help keep them honest.
Mike, thank you for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report. Yes, the aggregated compensation of rank-and-file employees is the largest portion of the city’s operating budget, by far. (This is understandable to a degree, because the city ultimately is a service organization.)
It remains to be seen whether giving pay raises to city council will improve the city’s leverage in its negotiations with public employee unions about their demands for more compensation.
Regarding the potential effects of council pay raises on council members’ honesty, that is an interesting question that each Oaklander can weigh for themselves.
Thank you again for your comment; it is very much appreciated.
Thank you Alex and Oakland Report. I say VOTE NO on Measure EE. Mindy Pechenuk for Oakland Mayor 2026.
Sean, you bring up the question - would an increase in salaries make the city council more effective in negotiating collective bargaining agreements? Surely it’s a rhetorical question. The fox is already in the hen house - between past affiliations (Unger was the Firefighter Union President FFS) and union campaign contributions both individually and through PAC funding, the answer is surely no - and everyone knows that. If our elected officials really wanted to focus on costs saving for the taxpayer and specifically addressing labor costs, they would simply recuse themselves from these negotiations. What do you think the answer to that question would be?
I didn’t question your research , I questioned your focus.
Viola, thank you for your additional comment, but it is a deflection. The potential council pay raises are a key component of the measure, not covered elsewhere much, if at all, and is therefore notable. Thank you again for commenting; your interest is appreciated -- even when it doesn't address the substance of the matter.
It's a little strange to look at this question almost exclusively through the lens of cost per resident. I understand the value of asking about the cost to taxpayers, but this calculation will make smaller cities like Oakland look like outliers simply because they have fewer residents. Long Beach is also cited as a comparison point, but Long Beach City Council members are part-time positions, and you are talking about a change to full-time positions in Oakland (at least as I understand it).
I think that you hit on another topic that deserves consideration however - if Measure EE passes and workload / responsibility of the council does decrease, should council positions be classified as full time?
There's another larger question you don't address - what is reasonable pay for public servants? On one hand we want to be responsible with government spending, but on the other we want to attract talent to government and so pay needs to meet some floor. $114,000 as a base salary for someone living in Oakland is much lower than what many high-achievers would consider attractive.
All this said, I do think compensation is a worthy discussion and I did not know this was part of Measure EE and I'm glad you brought this topic to the attention of many of us.
Hi, KP -- Thank you for your comment, it is appreciated. The article looks at the proposed council pay raises from few different angles, including by noting the city auditor's estimate of their total dollar value, by comparing the council's current pay to the median income in Oakland overall, and by noting the council pay in other cities the mayor's working group cited as examples in its report.
Your question about reducing the council members' responsibilities while increasing their pay is a good one, and is one that Oaklanders can weigh for themselves.
The same goes for your other good question about what is a reasonable level of pay. The article provides some benchmarks for readers to consider, such as the council's current salary and benefits, the median income in Oakland, and the council pay rates in some other cities.
Thank you again for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report.
Why would you assume that an independent body such as the Public Ethics Commission would go for the highest salaries? This is grasping for straws!! Salaries for securing full time attention should be the least of our worries in Oakland. How about focusing on getting things done!
Viola, thank you for your comment, but it isn't supported by the evidence. The article says: "When setting the city attorney’s pay this April, the [PEC] surveyed the four California cities above and the four below Oakland in population: San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, and Long Beach above; Bakersfield, Anaheim, Stockton, and Riverside below. Apply that same lens to council pay, and the highest-paid full-time legislative body among those peers is San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, at $175,370. Matching it would raise Oakland council pay about 54% — roughly $228,000 per year with benefits."
The article continues:
"There is also precedent for a bigger jump. In 2022, voters shifted the city attorney’s salary from a council decision to PEC benchmarking (Measure X). The commission’s first benchmarked adjustment, in 2023, raised that salary 26 percent. This year, the PEC raised the city attorney’s pay 5.4%, to $338,291 — and raised the council’s 5.0%, the most its inflation cap allows."
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.