Final Report
Jan 29, 2026
MAYOR’S
WORKING GROUP
ON CHARTER
REFORM
2 The Mayor’s Working Group
Purpose & Goals
Review and provide
recommendations for reforming
the Oakland City Charter to:
• Better define the role of elected
officials
• Address responsible city
financial planning
• Improve government
accountability and
transparency
● September-December 2025 - Conducted 14 community sessions across Oakland that engaged ~750 people; gathered community input through ~60 1:1 interviews, 433 survey responses; supported the working group in producing this report ● January-February 2026 - Report has been completed and made available publicly.
Hosting two sessions to discuss the contents of the report. ● February-July 2026 - Mayor will work with the City Council to develop a ballot measure through the legislative process.
● November 2026 - A measure proposing changes to the Charter could be on the ballot.
Timeline
5 Background Context
Community input consistently emphasized that Oakland’s governance challenges cannot be separated from the city’s broader context. ● Severe fiscal stress, including a growing structural budget deficit and the resulting need for more effective use of resources.
● Deep racial, wealth, and geographic inequities, with historical disinvestment in neighborhoods and inequitable service delivery and infrastructure conditions.
● A history of mayors and professional administrators who have lacked sufficient authority to lead decisively under the current Charter. ● A highly engaged civic culture, characterized by a desire for direct access to decision-makers and strong activism around racial and economic justice, accountability, transparency, and the influence of money in politics. 5 Key Findings
● Key Finding #1: Misaligned authority creates a disconnect between public expectations and actual powers.
● Key Finding #2: Weak institutional alignment undermines long-term planning, fiscal discipline, and effective oversight.
● Key Finding #3: Organizational complexity leads to operational inefficiencies and a lack of accountability and transparency. "Everyone is in charge, and therefore no one is in charge"
5 Two Approaches, Two Distinct Models
Council-Manager
● Council acts as unified legislative body - mayor sits on Council ● Council appoints professional manager to run city government ● Examples: Berkeley, Sacramento, Long Beach, San Jose
Strong Mayor
● Mayor is chief executive and runs city government
● Council serves as a separate legislative branch of government responsible for oversight
● Examples: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle ● 1931–1998: The Council-Manager Era Oakland adopted a council-manager model to bring professional management and reduce corruption.
● 1980: District Representation Voters passed Measure H, which tied Oakland City Council elections to individual districts, ushering in greater racial and political diversity on the council.
● 1984–1996: Failed Attempts at Reform By the 1980s, dissatisfaction with weak mayoral authority led to reform efforts. Two attempts by Mayors Lionel Wilson and Mayor Elihu Harris to strengthen mayors powers narrowly failed.
● 1998–2004: The Provisional Strong-Mayor System In 1998, Jerry Brown successfully championed Measure X, which passed with 75% of the vote and created a trial strong-mayor system for six years.
● 2005–Present: The Hybrid System Brown’s 2002 effort to make the strong-mayor system permanent failed. A Charter Review Commission then crafted a compromise that created structural ambiguity and competing lines of authority.
History of both systems in Oakland
5 Oakland's Current Hybrid System
The Problem: Oakland blends both models without securing the benefits of either
● The Mayor doesn’t serve on the council but lacks the powers of a strong mayor as they can’t vote on the council or veto its decisions ● The City Administrator manages city agencies and operations, like in a council-manager system but serves at the Mayor’s pleasure which elevates the Mayor’s influence in ways more typical of a strong mayor government
● This confounding of elements from both models creates confusion and competing lines of authority
5 Recommendation #1: Choose One Coherent Model
Oakland must adopt either:
Both are nationally recognized best practices
Option A: Strong Mayor
○ Mayor as chief executive
○ Council as legislative body
○ Unified executive authority
○ Separates administration and
legislative branches
○ Prioritizes the mayor’s
accountability to electors.
Option B: Council-Manager
○ Council as unified authority
○ Appointed city manager
○ Mayor heads council
○ Unifies political authority in the
legislative branch
○ Prioritizes administrative
direction by an appointed city
manager.
Strong Mayor systems work best
when:
○ Voters expect visible, executive
leadership
○ There are disparities across
neighborhoods that require a
citywide approach
○ Complex intergovernmental
challenges require a single, decisive
voice
○ Fiscal and administrative decisions
require unified direction
○ Political fragmentation makes
collective accountability difficult
Council–manager systems work best
when:
○ Professional administration is
prioritized
○ There are fewer disparities across
neighborhoods
○ Political conflict is relatively
low-intensity
○ Councils are cohesive and capable
of unified direction
○ Residents expect collective, rather
than individualized, political
leadership
Strengths of Each System
The Mayor Runs the City
● Chief executive responsible for operations and service delivery ● Can veto laws and budget decisions (council can override with 2/3 vote) City Administrator for Internal Functions
● Nominated by mayor, confirmed by council
● Oversees Finance, HR, IT, Procurement
Deputy Mayors/Cabinet Officials
● Deputy mayors or cabinet officials would lead policy departments and report directly to the Mayor (i.e. housing, public safety, infrastructure) Recommendation #2: Adopt Strong Mayor System
Strong Mayor systems
work best when:
Severe fiscal stress
Deep racial, wealth, and
geographic inequities
Highly engaged civic culture
Need for sufficient authority to
lead decisively
Complex intergovernmental
challenges
Disparities across neighborhoods
Voters expect visible, executive
leadership
Political fragmentation makes
collective accountability difficult
What we heard:
Build Legislative Capacity
● Create permanent Legislative & Budget Analyst office to provide analysis of budgets, fiscal impacts, policy interactions, and staffing implications and give the Council enhanced oversight authority.
Return the Council to an odd number to prevent ties
● Phase out the at-large seat to create a seven-member council, an odd number that eliminates the need for mayoral tie-breaking and thereby maintains clear separation between legislative and executive functions.
Clarify the Role and Compensation of the City Council
● Full-time service is generally assumed clarify this, and align salaries and rules on outside employment accordingly.
Recommendation #3: Strengthen the City Council
City Attorney & City Auditor
● Should these positions be elected or appointed?
Oversight Bodies
● Review rules for Police Commission, Public Ethics Commission, City Auditor
Financial Decision-Making
● Consider independent Controller, long-range financial planning requirements
These complex questions require deeper analysis beyond scope Future Considerations
Any Charter changes must be approved by Oakland voters
Path to the Ballot: Mayor Lee and City Council will determine which recommendations to advance in a ballot measure
Implementation: Thoughtful transition period needed for organizational restructuring
Living Document: Recommend Charter Review Commission or other means to update the charter at least every 10 years
Note: Charter reform creates conditions for improvement but cannot substitute for effective leadership and management
Next Steps
Learn More
Read the report and find all of the materials at:
mayorbarbaralee.com/charter
We all want an Oakland that works for everyone who
lives here.