Mayor Barbara Lee’s charter reform ‘working group’ was hand-picked to diagnose Oakland’s dysfunction. But the group was set up to rule out the reforms voters really want.
Viola -- Thank you for your comment. The article's point is that the working group's scope did not include key reforms that Oaklanders have asked and voted for -- reforms that reasonably can and should have been considered in the scope of the process -- and that the process was structured in such as way as to avoid the formal public scrutiny and participation required of other city advisory bodies. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
While the full working group was loaded with the Mayor's supporters, I think it is incorrect to characterize the two groups that led the effort as Mayoral supporters. I've been a volunteer with the League of Women voters of Oakland for decades, and I feel confident that they took this role on in the non-partisan, information finding and sharing mode that is built into the League's purpose and operations. The third option that some Councilmembers were pursuing has somehow been derailed. The four missing elements you raised are good and should be part of the discussion.
The simple answer is to vote down this proposed charter amendment and go back to the drawing board with a new working group drawn from a wider group of people with everything on the table.
I agree with you Alex, Sean and Oakland Report. Fantastic article and needed. We need the Third Option, not a strong mayor charter. Oakland needs new good leadership, that actually wants to develop the city. The strong mayor charter, even with the suggested changes will not work. Mindy Pechenuk, for Oakland Mayor
Of course there had to be a scope of work to review the Oakland charter. Have you not seen the charter in its entirety? It’s like the Grand Canyon. Adopting these charter reforms only helps improve the structure by which everyone understands the rules of engagement. There is much work ahead unrelated to the charter. Thanks for your attention.
Viola -- Thank you for your comment. The article's point is that the working group's scope did not include key reforms that Oaklanders have asked and voted for -- reforms that reasonably can and should have been considered in the scope of the process -- and that the process was structured in such as way as to avoid the formal public scrutiny and participation required of other city advisory bodies. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
Viola -- Thank you for your comment. The article's point is that the working group's scope did not include key reforms that Oaklanders have asked and voted for -- reforms that reasonably can and should have been considered in the scope of the process -- and that the process was structured in such as way as to avoid the formal public scrutiny and participation required of other city advisory bodies. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
While the full working group was loaded with the Mayor's supporters, I think it is incorrect to characterize the two groups that led the effort as Mayoral supporters. I've been a volunteer with the League of Women voters of Oakland for decades, and I feel confident that they took this role on in the non-partisan, information finding and sharing mode that is built into the League's purpose and operations. The third option that some Councilmembers were pursuing has somehow been derailed. The four missing elements you raised are good and should be part of the discussion.
The simple answer is to vote down this proposed charter amendment and go back to the drawing board with a new working group drawn from a wider group of people with everything on the table.
One more thought. We need to get rid of rank choice voting in Oakland!
I agree with you Alex, Sean and Oakland Report. Fantastic article and needed. We need the Third Option, not a strong mayor charter. Oakland needs new good leadership, that actually wants to develop the city. The strong mayor charter, even with the suggested changes will not work. Mindy Pechenuk, for Oakland Mayor
Today’s article borders on the irresponsible.
Of course there had to be a scope of work to review the Oakland charter. Have you not seen the charter in its entirety? It’s like the Grand Canyon. Adopting these charter reforms only helps improve the structure by which everyone understands the rules of engagement. There is much work ahead unrelated to the charter. Thanks for your attention.
Viola -- Thank you for your comment. The article's point is that the working group's scope did not include key reforms that Oaklanders have asked and voted for -- reforms that reasonably can and should have been considered in the scope of the process -- and that the process was structured in such as way as to avoid the formal public scrutiny and participation required of other city advisory bodies. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.