Nancy, Steven, Ben, outstanding article. Thank you for helping us to understand the differences and benefits of a council-manager system in such a clear and direct way.
It raised some questions for me: under the council-manager system:
First, would the mayor/council-president have any distinct executive authority other than setting the agenda and appointing committees? Would the mayor, for example, be able to appoint an ad hoc working group like the Charter Reform Working Group without a council vote? Would the mayor still have unique powers to appoint or remove members of certain commissions?
Second, what is considered a contract sufficiently 'major' that it would go to the council for approval vs. the city administrators sole authorization?
Third, would this bring transparency to the negotiation of contracts and labor agreements that are currently negotiated behind closed doors?
Fourth, would this continue to enforce the separation of powers (legislative and executive) such that council members are not permitted to direct the actions of employees other than the administrator (and perhaps other key officers appointed by the council, such as the city attorney)?
1) Specific powers could be written into the new charter, granted to the mayor via the city council “rules of procedures” document, or established by ordinance. At present, anyone can establish an advisory working group; it would only go to a Council vote if it were advisory to the Council as a whole (instead of just to the mayor or individual councilmembers), or if it required allocation of city resources (instead of any city expenses being reimbursed by an officeholder account or c3 group). Currently, Section 601(a) of the City Charter requires the Mayor to appoint all members of boards and commissions, subject to Council approval; this could be retained or amended as part of a charter reform package.
2) The threshold would be decided by the city council, not typically written into the charter. OMC 2.04.020 currently authorizes the City Administrator to execute contracts of up to $250,000, with anything above that requiring Council approval - a relatively low threshold that Council can adjust as needed. However, a key advantage of the Model City Charter is that ALL contract bidding processes and procedures are managed by the professional city manager and their professional staff – not elected officials – and large contracts are transparently heard by the City Council in open session, as opposed to going through the Mayor’s office, where political considerations may take priority. A recent controversy in San Francisco highlights the risks of the classic strong mayor approach: https://sfstandard.com/2025/11/19/san-francisco-daniel-lurie-opengov-contract-review/
3) The Model City Charter does not outline transparency requirements for contract negotiations and labor agreements - those are typically determined by the state transparency laws (eg the Brown Act) and on council and city attorney preferences.
4) Yes. There would be no change, and the Model City Charter specifically recommends provisions to prevent councilmembers from directing individual staff members. Council is typically limited to giving direction only as a body, and only to the city officers they hire directly (the city administrator, and in many cities the city clerk and city attorney).
Here are my arguments against this form of government. Can we have a live debate? I would LOVE that.
First off....Democratic accountability matters
A city manager is not elected. When government fails, voters have no clear person to hold accountable — even though they still expect the mayor to fix citywide problems.
Oakland is too large and complex for a city-manager model
Council-manager systems may function in smaller or quieter cities. Oakland is neither. It faces regional, state, and federal pressures that require an empowered, visible executive with a public mandate.
People already look to the mayor for leadership
Residents intuitively expect the mayor to lead. A city-manager model creates confusion by separating authority from responsibility and leaving voters frustrated.
Oakland needs citywide leadership (especially now), not just administration
The city requires a political leader who can advocate for Oakland beyond City Hall — something an unelected manager is neither designed nor empowered to do.
Fragmented authority produces paralysis
When power is diffused, decision-making collapses into finger-pointing. No one owns outcomes. A city-manager model reinforces this dysfunction instead of correcting it.
Power should match voter expectations
If the mayor is blamed or credited for results, the mayor must have the authority to act. Anything else is governance by misdirection.
Bottom line: Oakland does not need a return to managerial governance. It needs clear authority, visible leadership, and a system where responsibility and power finally align.
Hi Seneca— It sounds like you are in favor of a “strong mayor” form of government, with the mayor as the city’s top executive overseeing the city manager and department heads. Do I have that right?
The call to “return” Oakland to the Model City Charter mistakes nostalgia for diagnosis.
Yes, Oakland’s current system is broken. But the remedy being proposed would harden the very failures reformers claim to oppose — failures rooted not simply in the mayor’s office, but in council structure itself.
The core problem in Oakland is not an excess of executive power. It is fragmented authority and blurred accountability. Voters already hold the mayor responsible for outcomes, yet the mayor lacks the real tools to govern. Re-embedding the mayor inside a council-manager system does not resolve that contradiction — it deepens it.
I ran for mayor in 2022 explicitly on this argument because I believe it is the best option for Oakland: clarity of authority paired with accountability to voters. Not rule by personality, but rule with responsibility.
What the Model City Charter advocates largely ignore is Oakland’s even-numbered, district-based City Council, a structural flaw that practically invites paralysis. Eight councilmembers guarantee stalemate. Abstentions are weaponized to block action. Tie votes are engineered. Decision-making collapses into procedural theater rather than democratic choice.
District elections, once intended to expand representation, now incentivize parochial vetoes over citywide responsibility. Every councilmember governs a fragment; no one governs the whole. Equity becomes rhetorical while homelessness, public safety failures, and fiscal decay spread unchecked.
The Model City Charter promises technocratic virtue and managerial cleanliness, but Oakland does not suffer from too much democracy. It suffers from diffused responsibility. No professional city manager can govern a city structurally designed to avoid decisions.
Governance is not about purity or nostalgia. It is about consequence. Oakland does not need to go backward. It needs a system built to decide — and to be held accountable when it fails.
I'm glad you asked! Here are the recommendations I ran on in 2022, before a single elected official or candidate for office dared speak about it in public. (Basically the SPUR report findings - with my own personal recommendation for a return to an at-large model;
• Move to a true strong-mayor system so authority and accountability align
• Give the mayor real executive tools — veto power and line item budget veto authority
• Fix the even-numbered council, which invites stalemates and procedural sabotage.
• Revisit how districts function so councilmembers are accountable to the whole city, not just parochial interests
• Create an independent city controller to certify revenue and stop fantasy budgets
• Strengthen the city auditor and protect it from political retaliation
I ran for mayor in 2022 on exactly this framework because it’s the most honest option: fewer excuses, clearer responsibility, and a government that can actually decide — and be judged on the results.
Mr Falk et al - Thank y'all so much for your tireless & thankless work. I’ve been wondering what became of your efforts after the Mayor announced her own working group.
- Are you sitting on the Mayor’s working group?
- Has the Mayor’s group consulted with y’all?
- How can I support your efforts to implement the Model City charter?
I believe independent working groups may be more objective & more free from bias than those created inside the “system”
Thank you for all your thought. I really appreciate your efforts to improve city governance, which absolutely needs improvement. My primary concern with making a city administrator accountable to the entire city council is, have you seen our city council?
What qualified person, in their right mind, would take a job that serves at the pleasure of the Oakland City Council? We can't even keep a police chief. Can you imagine being harangued every week by Ken Houston AND Carol Fife? After watching the grandstanding, politicking, cow towing, and jockeying for position non stop from our city council (not all of them, true), I just find it hard to imagine them letting any qualified City Administrator do her or his job.
The last 20 years have convinced me that what we really need is an adult in the room. I would support this model if it included a strong City Administrator. Someone to actually administer the city government, and not be jockeying for higher office. And I'd want that person had some real protection from the blow-hardiness and short term thinking that's all too common on our council. A long term contract, terminable for cause, for instance. Or by a unanimous or near unanimous vote of the council and the Mayor's approval, also for cause.
Otherwise, I fear when they're all in charge, we still have no one in charge.
Doug, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish it in our next Letters to the editor column.
To your question: It’s true that almost everyone is subject to influence, but it matters who exerts the influence and to what degree. An elected executive (i.e. strong mayor) is directly influenced by political donors and key supporters and voting blocs.
An appointed executive reporting to a city council would be subject to their influence as bosses, but it would take a majority vote of council members to make that direction/influence official, not just a single one of them. Also, an appointed employee would not— or at least, should not—be subject to direct influence by political donors.
Fair point, Sean. Of course, while you're diluting potential outside influence by having 9 managers, you're also diluting internal management strength and clarity. And I honestly don't know which is doing more harm to Oakland right now, corruption, or poor management? I'd feel better about this approach if there were clearer protections for the independence of a qualified city manager. Thanks for hosting this good discussion.
With respect to having 9 bosses -- yes, it can be a challenge. But a capable CEO can work with their board to make the organization thrive. You are spot-on that professional qualifications and protecting the executive's ability to do their job without undue interference are important.
Nancy, Steven, Ben, outstanding article. Thank you for helping us to understand the differences and benefits of a council-manager system in such a clear and direct way.
It raised some questions for me: under the council-manager system:
First, would the mayor/council-president have any distinct executive authority other than setting the agenda and appointing committees? Would the mayor, for example, be able to appoint an ad hoc working group like the Charter Reform Working Group without a council vote? Would the mayor still have unique powers to appoint or remove members of certain commissions?
Second, what is considered a contract sufficiently 'major' that it would go to the council for approval vs. the city administrators sole authorization?
Third, would this bring transparency to the negotiation of contracts and labor agreements that are currently negotiated behind closed doors?
Fourth, would this continue to enforce the separation of powers (legislative and executive) such that council members are not permitted to direct the actions of employees other than the administrator (and perhaps other key officers appointed by the council, such as the city attorney)?
Hi Tim, great questions. Answers below:
1) Specific powers could be written into the new charter, granted to the mayor via the city council “rules of procedures” document, or established by ordinance. At present, anyone can establish an advisory working group; it would only go to a Council vote if it were advisory to the Council as a whole (instead of just to the mayor or individual councilmembers), or if it required allocation of city resources (instead of any city expenses being reimbursed by an officeholder account or c3 group). Currently, Section 601(a) of the City Charter requires the Mayor to appoint all members of boards and commissions, subject to Council approval; this could be retained or amended as part of a charter reform package.
2) The threshold would be decided by the city council, not typically written into the charter. OMC 2.04.020 currently authorizes the City Administrator to execute contracts of up to $250,000, with anything above that requiring Council approval - a relatively low threshold that Council can adjust as needed. However, a key advantage of the Model City Charter is that ALL contract bidding processes and procedures are managed by the professional city manager and their professional staff – not elected officials – and large contracts are transparently heard by the City Council in open session, as opposed to going through the Mayor’s office, where political considerations may take priority. A recent controversy in San Francisco highlights the risks of the classic strong mayor approach: https://sfstandard.com/2025/11/19/san-francisco-daniel-lurie-opengov-contract-review/
3) The Model City Charter does not outline transparency requirements for contract negotiations and labor agreements - those are typically determined by the state transparency laws (eg the Brown Act) and on council and city attorney preferences.
4) Yes. There would be no change, and the Model City Charter specifically recommends provisions to prevent councilmembers from directing individual staff members. Council is typically limited to giving direction only as a body, and only to the city officers they hire directly (the city administrator, and in many cities the city clerk and city attorney).
Here are my arguments against this form of government. Can we have a live debate? I would LOVE that.
First off....Democratic accountability matters
A city manager is not elected. When government fails, voters have no clear person to hold accountable — even though they still expect the mayor to fix citywide problems.
Oakland is too large and complex for a city-manager model
Council-manager systems may function in smaller or quieter cities. Oakland is neither. It faces regional, state, and federal pressures that require an empowered, visible executive with a public mandate.
People already look to the mayor for leadership
Residents intuitively expect the mayor to lead. A city-manager model creates confusion by separating authority from responsibility and leaving voters frustrated.
Oakland needs citywide leadership (especially now), not just administration
The city requires a political leader who can advocate for Oakland beyond City Hall — something an unelected manager is neither designed nor empowered to do.
Fragmented authority produces paralysis
When power is diffused, decision-making collapses into finger-pointing. No one owns outcomes. A city-manager model reinforces this dysfunction instead of correcting it.
Power should match voter expectations
If the mayor is blamed or credited for results, the mayor must have the authority to act. Anything else is governance by misdirection.
Bottom line: Oakland does not need a return to managerial governance. It needs clear authority, visible leadership, and a system where responsibility and power finally align.
Hi Seneca— It sounds like you are in favor of a “strong mayor” form of government, with the mayor as the city’s top executive overseeing the city manager and department heads. Do I have that right?
Yes, with the mayor having line item budget veto and legislative veto powers. Odd numbered council as well.
The call to “return” Oakland to the Model City Charter mistakes nostalgia for diagnosis.
Yes, Oakland’s current system is broken. But the remedy being proposed would harden the very failures reformers claim to oppose — failures rooted not simply in the mayor’s office, but in council structure itself.
The core problem in Oakland is not an excess of executive power. It is fragmented authority and blurred accountability. Voters already hold the mayor responsible for outcomes, yet the mayor lacks the real tools to govern. Re-embedding the mayor inside a council-manager system does not resolve that contradiction — it deepens it.
I ran for mayor in 2022 explicitly on this argument because I believe it is the best option for Oakland: clarity of authority paired with accountability to voters. Not rule by personality, but rule with responsibility.
What the Model City Charter advocates largely ignore is Oakland’s even-numbered, district-based City Council, a structural flaw that practically invites paralysis. Eight councilmembers guarantee stalemate. Abstentions are weaponized to block action. Tie votes are engineered. Decision-making collapses into procedural theater rather than democratic choice.
District elections, once intended to expand representation, now incentivize parochial vetoes over citywide responsibility. Every councilmember governs a fragment; no one governs the whole. Equity becomes rhetorical while homelessness, public safety failures, and fiscal decay spread unchecked.
The Model City Charter promises technocratic virtue and managerial cleanliness, but Oakland does not suffer from too much democracy. It suffers from diffused responsibility. No professional city manager can govern a city structurally designed to avoid decisions.
Governance is not about purity or nostalgia. It is about consequence. Oakland does not need to go backward. It needs a system built to decide — and to be held accountable when it fails.
Hi Seneca-- Thanks for engaging in the conversation. Can you share what you think the best governance model would be for Oakland?
I'm glad you asked! Here are the recommendations I ran on in 2022, before a single elected official or candidate for office dared speak about it in public. (Basically the SPUR report findings - with my own personal recommendation for a return to an at-large model;
• Move to a true strong-mayor system so authority and accountability align
• Give the mayor real executive tools — veto power and line item budget veto authority
• Fix the even-numbered council, which invites stalemates and procedural sabotage.
• Revisit how districts function so councilmembers are accountable to the whole city, not just parochial interests
• Create an independent city controller to certify revenue and stop fantasy budgets
• Strengthen the city auditor and protect it from political retaliation
I ran for mayor in 2022 on exactly this framework because it’s the most honest option: fewer excuses, clearer responsibility, and a government that can actually decide — and be judged on the results.
Mr Falk et al - Thank y'all so much for your tireless & thankless work. I’ve been wondering what became of your efforts after the Mayor announced her own working group.
- Are you sitting on the Mayor’s working group?
- Has the Mayor’s group consulted with y’all?
- How can I support your efforts to implement the Model City charter?
I believe independent working groups may be more objective & more free from bias than those created inside the “system”
Thanks for your work.
D
Hi David-
In re your questions:
- Are you sitting on the Mayor’s working group?
No, we were not invited to join the Working Group. Because their meetings are private, we have little insight into their deliberations.
- Has the Mayor’s group consulted with y’all?
Yes. The coordinators did interview us as part of their investigation, wherein we told them that we’re ready to support any and all solutions that address Oakland’s Four Fundamental Flaws (see: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15CRdM1rKCuCRh4QkHNuOfDuzkocZOuer/view?usp=drivesdk)
- How can I support your efforts to implement the Model City charter?
The most impactful thing you can do right now is send your opinions about charter reform
to the Working Group via Nicole Neditch, at nneditch@spur.org.
Thanks for reaching out!
SF
Thank you for your efforts. Completely agree with this recommendation. It will be an uphill battle changing the charter.
Thank you for all your thought. I really appreciate your efforts to improve city governance, which absolutely needs improvement. My primary concern with making a city administrator accountable to the entire city council is, have you seen our city council?
What qualified person, in their right mind, would take a job that serves at the pleasure of the Oakland City Council? We can't even keep a police chief. Can you imagine being harangued every week by Ken Houston AND Carol Fife? After watching the grandstanding, politicking, cow towing, and jockeying for position non stop from our city council (not all of them, true), I just find it hard to imagine them letting any qualified City Administrator do her or his job.
The last 20 years have convinced me that what we really need is an adult in the room. I would support this model if it included a strong City Administrator. Someone to actually administer the city government, and not be jockeying for higher office. And I'd want that person had some real protection from the blow-hardiness and short term thinking that's all too common on our council. A long term contract, terminable for cause, for instance. Or by a unanimous or near unanimous vote of the council and the Mayor's approval, also for cause.
Otherwise, I fear when they're all in charge, we still have no one in charge.
Doug, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish it in our next Letters to the editor column.
To your question: It’s true that almost everyone is subject to influence, but it matters who exerts the influence and to what degree. An elected executive (i.e. strong mayor) is directly influenced by political donors and key supporters and voting blocs.
An appointed executive reporting to a city council would be subject to their influence as bosses, but it would take a majority vote of council members to make that direction/influence official, not just a single one of them. Also, an appointed employee would not— or at least, should not—be subject to direct influence by political donors.
Fair point, Sean. Of course, while you're diluting potential outside influence by having 9 managers, you're also diluting internal management strength and clarity. And I honestly don't know which is doing more harm to Oakland right now, corruption, or poor management? I'd feel better about this approach if there were clearer protections for the independence of a qualified city manager. Thanks for hosting this good discussion.
Doug -- We would like to publish your comments in our next Letters to the Editor column. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20251119-letters-to-the-editor
With respect to having 9 bosses -- yes, it can be a challenge. But a capable CEO can work with their board to make the organization thrive. You are spot-on that professional qualifications and protecting the executive's ability to do their job without undue interference are important.