A dialog with an Oakland Report subscriber and the authors of our March 2 commentary, “Oakland voters should reject the inadequate ‘strong-mayor’ proposal.”
A “powerful” mayor embedded in a “powerful” council with a “professional” city administrator. What are the roles and responsibilities of these powerful and professional people?
- Can the mayor direct work?
- Can the mayor veto?
- Does mayor have executive order powers?
- Can council direct work?
- Does Section 218 still apply?
- Is the city administrator’s future based on the vote count at the moment?
- Who hires / fires department heads?
What makes the mayor “powerful” versus “weak”?
What makes the council “powerful” versus “weak”? Would the current council be considered “powerful”?
What makes the city administrator “professional”? Are we saying the current city administrator is “unprofessional”?
This is starting to sound like some elected folks don’t want to give up their positions or their power. I can understand they. So, let’s just give everyone more power and make them work together. What can go wrong?
Lastly, I’m coming to the personal conclusion that Oakland is not ready for and would not benefit from a strong mayor form of government. We have a culture that values high engagement and a lot of collaboration. That’s excellent and good. The strong mayor is constantly pushing to execute their agenda. The conflict might be too much.
Personally, I would rather report to a mayor and implement his/her vision.
That was a good refresher read. This sounds very similar to Atlanta without the Mayor’s office - an elected council president that we will call mayor plus X number of council members. I think it’s worth a discussion about powers gained/lost by the city administrator. From my vantage point, the position now serves as an unelected mayor.
A “powerful” mayor embedded in a “powerful” council with a “professional” city administrator. What are the roles and responsibilities of these powerful and professional people?
- Can the mayor direct work?
- Can the mayor veto?
- Does mayor have executive order powers?
- Can council direct work?
- Does Section 218 still apply?
- Is the city administrator’s future based on the vote count at the moment?
- Who hires / fires department heads?
What makes the mayor “powerful” versus “weak”?
What makes the council “powerful” versus “weak”? Would the current council be considered “powerful”?
What makes the city administrator “professional”? Are we saying the current city administrator is “unprofessional”?
This is starting to sound like some elected folks don’t want to give up their positions or their power. I can understand they. So, let’s just give everyone more power and make them work together. What can go wrong?
Lastly, I’m coming to the personal conclusion that Oakland is not ready for and would not benefit from a strong mayor form of government. We have a culture that values high engagement and a lot of collaboration. That’s excellent and good. The strong mayor is constantly pushing to execute their agenda. The conflict might be too much.
Personally, I would rather report to a mayor and implement his/her vision.
@Josh - Thank you for your comment. Many of the questions you ask are covered in the previous commentaries in our Charter Reform series:
https://www.oaklandreport.org/t/charter-reform
A good starting point is the first commentary about the council-manager form of government (also known as the “model city charter”):
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/commentary-oakland-should-return
That was a good refresher read. This sounds very similar to Atlanta without the Mayor’s office - an elected council president that we will call mayor plus X number of council members. I think it’s worth a discussion about powers gained/lost by the city administrator. From my vantage point, the position now serves as an unelected mayor.
Thanks!! At what point would the voting public actually see the charter language?