Oakland's charter reform could raise council pay up to 125%, pushing total compensation past $300,000 — yet the provision has been nearly absent from the public debate.
Here is what Gemini says about Oakland City Council member job responsibilities: “ Unlike the Mayor or the City Administrator, council members do not hold day-to-day administrative powers over city departments. Instead, they provide policy direction for departments to execute.”
Questions:
1. What is driving the need to make these full time jobs?
2. Does a city with 400K population need 8 full time jobs to “provide policy direction for departments to execute”?
3. Are there minimal job requirements (education, job experience, etc.) for the city council member?
Pay must be based on available funding and performance, not some artificially constructed benchmarks. Four years of “extreme financial emergency” is a trigger for firings, not pay raises.
How can a city that has been in a years long fiscal emergency afford the salaries that would result from this charter reform measure? No amount of "charter reform" will fix Oakland's government. It's a pipe dream to think anything will change for the better with a mayor and councilmembers who are not critical thinkers in charge of things.
It appears there’s way too much effort going into awarding pay raises and not nearly enough or any effort going into performance measures that improve the quality of the services offered by the city. When the compensation of the council, the mayor, etc are increased, what are the people of Oakland going to get.
I don’t support pay raises for city council. Including them in the measure will cause a not vote on the city charter change. Oakland residents are not sleep. We see what is happening and will not support these changes.
If salaries are to be set by those of other jurisdictions, why not limit salary comparisons to such cities as Long Beach, Fresno or San Bernardino? Oakland is tiny compared to LA or San Diego.
Josh — Thank you for your comment. Regardless of the goal, the practical effect is to give incumbents raises— potentially significant ones. Furthermore, if the goal is to “attract more qualified, competitive candidates,” the implication is therefore that the current incumbents are neither competitive nor qualified enough. So far, no council member has commented or offered any justification for or against the raises, despite the raises being a main component of the overall charter reform measure. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
Just think. Council candidates might think they are approving pay raises for themselves when they are actually inviting stronger competition for their seats. I think that is a good thing.
Josh — The charter reform measure would expressly prohibit council members from having “outside employment.” That could actually inhibit potential candidates who are gainfully employed and financially successful in their day jobs — precisely the type of accomplished people who might be more qualified and competitive for council seats.
I look at it the other way. The goal isn’t to give raises to incumbents. The goal is to attract more qualified, competitive candidates. Let’s say I am an active member of the community, have a real job, have real experience, and would like to challenge my district council member who is not doing (in my opinion) a good job, I can’t afford the pay cut. What’s the saying, “You get what you pay for.” Maybe some term limits should be attached to this proposal too. After a maximum of two terms, it’s time to move on.
There is a simple amendment that would demonstrate the council intent: (a) no council member shall be eligible, in the present or future term, for any compensation increase that is approved or effected by the council or city administration while they are serving as a member of council; (b) during a declared fiscal necessity or fiscal emergency, the council, mayor and mayor staff salaries shall be reduced by 50% and benefit calculations shall use this reduced salary as the basis; (c) this provision may be revoked or suspended only by 2/3 supermajority of the vote in a general or special election.
Josh, thank you for your comment. Regardless of the goal, the practical effect is to give incumbents raises— potentially significant ones. Furthermore, if the goal is to “attract more qualified, competitive candidates,” the implication is therefore that the current incumbents are neither competitive nor qualified enough. So far, no council member has commented or offered any justification for or against the raises, despite the raises being a main component of the overall charter reform measure. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
Here is what Gemini says about Oakland City Council member job responsibilities: “ Unlike the Mayor or the City Administrator, council members do not hold day-to-day administrative powers over city departments. Instead, they provide policy direction for departments to execute.”
Questions:
1. What is driving the need to make these full time jobs?
2. Does a city with 400K population need 8 full time jobs to “provide policy direction for departments to execute”?
3. Are there minimal job requirements (education, job experience, etc.) for the city council member?
Pay must be based on available funding and performance, not some artificially constructed benchmarks. Four years of “extreme financial emergency” is a trigger for firings, not pay raises.
How can a city that has been in a years long fiscal emergency afford the salaries that would result from this charter reform measure? No amount of "charter reform" will fix Oakland's government. It's a pipe dream to think anything will change for the better with a mayor and councilmembers who are not critical thinkers in charge of things.
It appears there’s way too much effort going into awarding pay raises and not nearly enough or any effort going into performance measures that improve the quality of the services offered by the city. When the compensation of the council, the mayor, etc are increased, what are the people of Oakland going to get.
I don’t support pay raises for city council. Including them in the measure will cause a not vote on the city charter change. Oakland residents are not sleep. We see what is happening and will not support these changes.
If salaries are to be set by those of other jurisdictions, why not limit salary comparisons to such cities as Long Beach, Fresno or San Bernardino? Oakland is tiny compared to LA or San Diego.
Well, golly, shouldn't we reward their great success?
Josh — Thank you for your comment. Regardless of the goal, the practical effect is to give incumbents raises— potentially significant ones. Furthermore, if the goal is to “attract more qualified, competitive candidates,” the implication is therefore that the current incumbents are neither competitive nor qualified enough. So far, no council member has commented or offered any justification for or against the raises, despite the raises being a main component of the overall charter reform measure. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
Just think. Council candidates might think they are approving pay raises for themselves when they are actually inviting stronger competition for their seats. I think that is a good thing.
Josh — The charter reform measure would expressly prohibit council members from having “outside employment.” That could actually inhibit potential candidates who are gainfully employed and financially successful in their day jobs — precisely the type of accomplished people who might be more qualified and competitive for council seats.
I look at it the other way. The goal isn’t to give raises to incumbents. The goal is to attract more qualified, competitive candidates. Let’s say I am an active member of the community, have a real job, have real experience, and would like to challenge my district council member who is not doing (in my opinion) a good job, I can’t afford the pay cut. What’s the saying, “You get what you pay for.” Maybe some term limits should be attached to this proposal too. After a maximum of two terms, it’s time to move on.
There is a simple amendment that would demonstrate the council intent: (a) no council member shall be eligible, in the present or future term, for any compensation increase that is approved or effected by the council or city administration while they are serving as a member of council; (b) during a declared fiscal necessity or fiscal emergency, the council, mayor and mayor staff salaries shall be reduced by 50% and benefit calculations shall use this reduced salary as the basis; (c) this provision may be revoked or suspended only by 2/3 supermajority of the vote in a general or special election.
Josh, thank you for your comment. Regardless of the goal, the practical effect is to give incumbents raises— potentially significant ones. Furthermore, if the goal is to “attract more qualified, competitive candidates,” the implication is therefore that the current incumbents are neither competitive nor qualified enough. So far, no council member has commented or offered any justification for or against the raises, despite the raises being a main component of the overall charter reform measure. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.