STAFF REPORT AND DRAFT RESOLUTION
Oakland
Charter
Reform
Prepared for City Council consideration
To: Oakland City Council From: Mayor Barbara Lee Subject: PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE TO REFORM OAKLAND’S CITY CHARTER Date: May 7, 2026 —------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution expressing the City Council’s intent to place
the
Charter
Reform
measure
before
the
voters,
approving
the
policy
framework
reflected
in
the
Working
Group
report,
and
directing
staff
to
prepare
the
final
ballot
language
and
related
materials
consistent
with
the
Council’s
action
and
applicable
law.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oakland’s current City Charter blends elements of a strong-mayor system and a council-manager
system
in
a
manner
that
diffuses
authority,
obscures
accountability,
and
makes
it
difficult
for
residents
to
understand
who
is
responsible
for
delivering
services
and
results.
Over
time,
this
hybrid
structure
has
produced
overlapping
roles,
fragmented
decision-making,
and
inconsistent
lines
of
responsibility
across
City
government.
The Mayor’s Charter Reform Working Group, co-chaired by the Oakland League of Women Voters
and
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
Planning
and
Urban
Research
Association
(SPUR)
concluded
that
Oakland
requires
a
coherent,
modern
governance
structure
that
clearly
aligns
authority
with
responsibility.
The
Working
Group
recommends
transitioning
to
a
“strong
mayor,
strong
council”
model
that
establishes:
● A Mayor who serves as the City’s chief executive, accountable for managing operations and
delivering
services;
and
● A City Council that exercises clear legislative authority, robust oversight, and meaningful checks
and
balances
on
executive
power.
1 The Working Group’s findings are grounded in one of the most extensive recent civic engagement
efforts
focused
on
governance
reform
in
Oakland.
Over
the
course
of
its
process,
the
Working
Group:
● Conducted more than 60 in-depth interviews with current and former elected officials, department
heads,
labor
leaders,
and
subject-matter
experts;
● Held 14 public community meetings across all Council districts ; ● Administered a survey, and ultimately engaged more than 750 Oakland residents directly,
reflecting
a
wide
cross-section
of
the
city.
Across all of these efforts, the Working Group identified a consistent and reinforcing conclusion:
Oaklanders
want
clear
accountability,
decisive
leadership,
and
a
system
that
makes
it
obvious
who
is
responsible
for
results.
The report also identifies that structural ambiguity contributes directly to:
● Delays in service delivery, ● Difficulty advancing major policy initiatives, ● Confusion in budget development and implementation, and ● Reduced public trust in government.
The urgency of reform is heightened by Oakland’s broader conditions. The Working Group emphasizes
that
governance
reform
is
occurring
in
the
context
of:
● A structural budget deficit and ongoing fiscal volatility , ● Underinvestment in core infrastructure and services , ● Deep racial and geographic inequities , and ● A civic culture in which residents expect access, responsiveness, and accountability from
their
elected
officials.
In this context, the Working Group determined that structural reform is essential to ensure that
the
City
can
meet
its
obligations
to
residents
today
and
in
the
future.
The recommendations are organized around three core goals:
1. Clarifying roles and responsibilities so that Oaklanders know who sets policy, who manages
operations,
and
who
is
accountable
for
outcomes;
2. Strengthening financial management to support transparent, balanced, and sustainable
budgeting;
and
3. Increasing accountability and transparency so residents can clearly understand how decisions
are
made
and
how
public
resources
are
used.
These are structural changes—but structure shapes performance, and performance shapes public
trust,
and
therefore
Charter
reform
is
about
building
a
system
that
works
clearly,
effectively,
and
accountably
for
Oakland
residents—now
and
for
generations
to
come.
2 BACKGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Mayor convened the Charter Reform Working Group in August 2025 as a central component
of
the
Administration’s
100-day
plan,
with
the
goal
of
conducting
a
comprehensive,
independent
evaluation
of
Oakland’s
governance
structure
and
developing
recommendations
to
improve
effectiveness,
accountability,
and
public
trust.
The Working Group was co-facilitated by the League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR
,
two
respected
nonpartisan
organizations
with
deep
expertise
in
governance,
civic
engagement,
and
institutional
reform.
Their
role
was
to
ensure
a
transparent,
balanced,
and
evidence-driven
process
.
The Working Group’s comparative research reviewed 12 U.S. cities, including Seattle, Boston, Cleveland,
Portland,
San
Diego,
Fresno,
Oakland,
Long
Beach,
El
Paso,
Phoenix,
San
Jose,
and
Sacramento.
That
analysis
helped
the
Group
identify
which
powers
are
typically
paired
with
a
strong-mayor
system
and
which
powers
are
usually
retained
by
a
legislative
body
in
a
council-manager
system.
The Working Group included Oakland residents with diverse professional backgrounds, including:
● Labor leadership ● Business and economic development ● Municipal finance and budgeting ● Ethics and good governance ● Law and public administration ● Community advocacy and organizing As emphasized in the report, the Working Group operated independently, without a predetermined
outcome.
Members
were
asked
to
evaluate
governance
models
based
on
evidence,
community
input,
and
best
practices
from
other
jurisdictions.
I. Scope and Guiding Questions
The Working Group was tasked with advancing three central objectives:
1. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of elected officials and City leadership; 2. Strengthen financial management and budgeting practices; and 3. Improve accountability, transparency, and public access to government.
II. Community Engagement and Research
The Working Group’s process combined extensive community engagement with comparative
research
and
expert
consultation
.
Specifically,
the
Working
Group:
● Conducted 60+ structured interviews with key stakeholders; 3 ● Hosted 14 public meetings across all Council districts to ensure geographic representation;
● Engaged 750+ residents directly ; and ● Reviewed governance models and best practices from peer cities across California and nationally.
This process ensured that the recommendations were both community-informed and grounded
in
real-world
governance
experience
.
III. Key Finding: Misalignment Between Authority and Expectations Across interviews, surveys, and public input, the Working Group identified a central, unifying issue:
There is a persistent misalignment between what Oakland residents expect their government
to
do
and
what
the
Charter
actually
empowers
City
leaders
to
do.
Residents expect:
● The Mayor to be clearly responsible for delivering services; ● The Council to legislate, oversee, and advocate effectively; and ● The system as a whole to function cohesively.
However, the current Charter does not consistently support those expectations, resulting in:
● Diffused accountability, ● Operational inefficiencies, and ● Challenges in delivering timely and effective services.
The Working Group concluded that Oakland’s governance challenges are not solely the result of policy
decisions
or
leadership
changes.
They
are
structural
.
As a result, meaningful and lasting improvement requires Charter reform that creates a clear, coherent,
and
accountable
system
of
government
aligned
with
Oakland’s
current
needs
and
future
goals
.
ANALYSIS AND PROPOSAL
The Mayor’s Charter Reform Working Group recommends that Oakland adopt a “strong mayor,
strong
council”
governance
structure
that
clearly
defines
roles,
strengthens
accountability,
and
aligns
authority
with
responsibility.
A. Core Structural Framework
Under this model:
Mayor (Executive Branch)
4 The Mayor serves as the City’s chief executive , responsible for:
● Managing City departments and operations; ● Implementing laws and policies adopted by the Council; ● Proposing the City’s annual budget; and ● Ensuring delivery of core services to residents.
The Mayor is also granted:
● General veto authority over legislation that can be overturned by two thirds of the council
;
and
● Budget line-item veto authority , enabling targeted adjustments to specific appropriations.
These tools align executive accountability with the authority necessary to manage operations effectively.
City Council (Legislative Branch)
The City Council remains the legislative body , with strengthened authority to:
● Adopt ordinances and set City policy; ● Review, amend, and adopt the City budget; ● Conduct oversight hearings and investigations; ● Confirm key mayoral appointments, where applicable; ● Approve contracts and major policy decisions; and ● Override mayoral vetoes by a two-thirds supermajority , preserving legislative checks and
balances.
The Working Group emphasizes that a strong executive must be paired with a strong, well-resourced
city
council
to
ensure
accountability.
Strengthening Legislative Capacity
To support the Council’s expanded oversight role, the Working Group recommends establishing an
Independent
Budget
and
Legislative
Analyst
Office
,
modeled
after
offices
in
peer
cities.
This office would provide:
● Independent fiscal analysis of the City budget; ● Policy analysis of proposed legislation; ● Evaluation of implementation feasibility and operational impacts; and ● Ongoing support for Council oversight responsibilities.
Clarifying Constituent Services and Section 218 Reform ● Affirm the Council’s role in constituent services and inquiry ; 5 ● Establish clear, direct communication channels between Councilmembers and City departments;
and
● Require timely and transparent responses from the executive branch.
At the same time, the revised framework preserves a clear boundary:
● Councilmembers may not direct or coerce staff in administrative matters, protecting the
integrity
of
executive
operations.
This approach shifts Section 218 from a primarily prohibitive framework to one that enables effective
service
delivery
while
maintaining
appropriate
separation
of
powers
.
Full-Time Council and Compensation Reform
The Working Group finds that Oakland’s Charter currently lacks clarity regarding whether Council
service
is
full-time,
despite
expectations
that
it
functions
as
such.
The measure:
● Explicitly defines the Council as a full-time legislative body ; ● Prohibits outside employment to ensure independence and focus; and ● Aligns compensation with all elected officials through regular review by the Public Ethics
Commission.
This recommendation is grounded in both governance best practices and an equity rationale :
ensuring
that
public
service
is
accessible
to
individuals
from
all
backgrounds,
not
only
those
with
independent
financial
means.
Mayoral Veto and Budget Line-Item Veto
The Working Group strongly supports the inclusion of:
● A general mayoral veto , and ● A budget line-item veto , as core components of a balanced system.
The report emphasizes that:
● These tools are checks and balances , not unilateral powers; ● The Council retains final authority through supermajority override ; and ● The budget line-item veto functions as a “scalpel, not a hatchet,” allowing targeted corrections
rather
than
all-or-nothing
budget
conflicts.
The existence of these tools is expected to:
● Improve fiscal discipline;
6 ● Reduce high-stakes budget standoffs; and ● Encourage earlier collaboration between the branches.
B. Rejection of Alternative Governance Models
The Working Group explicitly evaluated and rejected alternative proposals, other than the ones specifically
mentioned
in
the
report,
including
models
that
attempt
to
blend
council-manager
and
strong-mayor
features.
The report concludes that such models:
● Are not widely used or recognized as best practice; ● Introduce additional complexity and confusion; and ● Fail to resolve the underlying problem of unclear authority and accountability .
Instead, the Working Group determined that Oakland should adopt a coherent, widely understood
governance
model
aligned
with
established
best
practices.
C. Charter Reform Working Group Detailed Descriptions The Working Group’s recommendations reflect a comprehensive, evidence-based conclusion:
Oakland’s current challenges are rooted in structural ambiguity. A clear, balanced system
featuring
a
strong
executive
and
a
strengthened
legislative
branch
is
necessary
to
improve
performance,
accountability,
and
public
trust.
By aligning authority with responsibility, strengthening oversight, and modernizing key provisions of
the
Charter,
the
proposed
reforms
establish
a
governance
framework
capable
of
meeting
Oakland’s
current
needs
and
future
challenges.
The following recommendations below are incorporated into the measure Section 218: Constituent Affairs and Non-Interference The proposed replacement for Section 218 is intended to protect Councilmembers’ ability to serve
as
accessible
points
of
contact
for
residents,
while
preserving
the
prohibition
on
directing,
ordering,
or
coercing
City
staff.
The
revised
structure:
(1)
requires
each
department
under
the
Mayor’s
or
City
Administrator’s
jurisdiction
to
maintain
at
least
one
designated
Council
liaison;
(2)
allow
Councilmembers
to
still
broadly
communicate
with
city
staff
to
request
information,
report
constituent
complaints,
submit
and
follow
up
on
service
requests,
and
obtain
status
updates;
(3)
requires
timely
and
reasonable
responses;
and
(4)
preserve
the
prohibition
on
Council
interference
with
administrative
affairs
and
staff-level
decision-making.
This approach moves the city away from prohibitory language in the charter and toward a balanced
framework
that
highlights
Council’s
ability
to
advocate
and
solve
constituents
requests
while
keeping
staff
protected
from
undue
pressure.
It
also
modernizes
a
decades-old
provision
7 that was framed for a different era of municipal governance and better reflects today’s expectations
for
transparency,
responsiveness,
and
service
delivery.
Full-Time Council and Compensation Alignment
The Working Group recommends making explicit in the Charter that City Council service is a full-time
legislative
role
,
accompanied
by
a
prohibition
on
outside
employment.
While
Oakland
has
long
operated
with
the
expectation
of
full-time
Council
service,
the
Charter
does
not
currently
codify
this
standard—creating
ambiguity
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
expectations
for
other
elected
officials
and
with
practices
in
comparable
strong-mayor,
strong
council
cities.
Clarifying full-time service in the Charter will align Oakland with peer jurisdictions and ensure that
the
City
Council
is
fully
equipped
to
function
as
a
co-equal
branch
of
government.
In
strong-mayor
systems,
full-time
councils
are
the
norm,
reflecting
the
significant
responsibilities
associated
with
legislative
decision-making,
budget
approval,
and
oversight
of
executive
operations.
A
full-time
Council
is
essential
to
providing
robust
policy
analysis,
conducting
effective
oversight,
and
serving
as
a
meaningful
check
and
balance
on
executive
authority.
To support this structure, the Charter amendment would:
● Specify full-time Council service , making explicit what is currently assumed and bringing
consistency
to
how
Oakland
defines
the
roles
and
expectations
of
its
elected
officials.
Establishing
Council
service
as
explicitly
full-time
is
also
an
equity
imperative:
when
the
role
is
functionally
full-time
but
not
clearly
defined
or
compensated
as
such,
it
can
exclude
individuals
who
cannot
afford
to
subsidize
public
service
with
outside
income
or
personal
wealth—disproportionately
impacting
working-class
residents
and
communities
of
color
and
limiting
who
is
able
to
serve.
● Prohibit outside employment for Councilmembers , ensuring independence, reducing potential
conflicts
of
interest,
and
reinforcing
a
full-time
focus
on
legislative
and
oversight
responsibilities.
This
prohibition
further
advances
equity
by
ensuring
that
all
Councilmembers,
regardless
of
personal
financial
circumstances,
are
able
to
dedicate
their
full
time
and
attention
to
public
service,
rather
than
balancing
competing
employment
demands.
● Strengthen the Council’s capacity to serve constituents , including affirming its role in constituent
services
and
inquiry,
establishing
clear
and
direct
communication
channels
with
the
Mayor,
City
Administrator,
and
City
departments,
and
requiring
timely
and
transparent
responses
to
Council
requests
for
information
and
service
updates.
These
improvements
help
ensure
that
all
Oakland
residents,
particularly
those
in
historically
underserved
communities
can
receive
responsive,
accessible,
and
equitable
City
services.
● Preserve appropriate boundaries between branches of government , maintaining prohibitions
on
directing
or
coercing
City
staff
in
administrative
matters
while
supporting
effective
communication
and
accountability.
By
pairing
clear
boundaries
with
strong
communication
channels
will
support
a
governance
model
that
is
both
accountable
and
8 equitable, ensuring that residents can access services through their elected representatives
without
compromising
the
integrity
of
executive
operations.
In parallel, the Working Group recommended aligning salary-setting provisions for Councilmembers
with
those
applicable
to
all
City
of
Oakland
elected
officials,
including
the
Mayor,
City
Attorney,
and
City
Auditor.
A
comprehensive
salary
survey
of
similarly
sized
strong
mayor,
strong
council
cities
should
be
conducted
to
ensure
that
compensation
reflects
the
scope
and
demands
of
full-time
legislative
service.
The proposal to align salaries to ensure that Oakland remains a leader in ethical governance and
responsive
to
the
city’s
evolving
needs
was
initially
recommended
by
the
Public
Ethics
Commission
subcommittee
(PEC)
in
2024,
where
they
recommended
transferring
the
mayoral
salary
setting
to
the
PEC.
Moving to a transparent and clear process would ensure fairness, transparency, and consistency
across
all
elected
offices.
Any
changes
with
fiscal
implications
can
then
be
considered
within
the
City’s
broader
budgetary
process.
Establishing a full-time Council and aligning compensation is also fundamentally an equity issue
.
Under
the
current
structure
where
expectations
are
effectively
full-time
but
not
formally
defined
or
compensated
accordingly,
the
role
of
city
council
may
be
inaccessible
to
individuals
who
cannot
afford
to
subsidize
public
service
with
outside
income
or
personal
resources.
This
dynamic
creates
barriers
that
disproportionately
impact
working-class
residents
and
communities
of
color,
limiting
who
is
able
to
serve
and
whose
perspectives
are
represented
in
City
governance.
By explicitly establishing full-time service, prohibiting outside employment, and aligning compensation
with
peer
cities,
Oakland
can
help
ensure
that
Council
service
is
accessible
to
a
broader
and
more
representative
cross-section
of
residents.
Equitable
compensation
enables
Councilmembers
to
fully
dedicate
their
time
and
attention
to
legislative
work,
oversight,
and
constituent
services
without
financial
strain
or
competing
obligations.
This,
in
turn,
strengthens
the
quality
of
policymaking
and
oversight,
particularly
on
issues
that
most
impact
underserved
communities,
and
advances
a
governance
model
that
is
more
inclusive,
accountable,
and
responsive.
When Councilmembers have the time, compensation, and institutional support necessary to govern
effectively,
the
entire
system
benefits:
legislative
quality
improves,
oversight
becomes
more
rigorous,
fiscal
decisions
are
more
informed,
and
the
Council
can
fully
perform
its
role
as
a
co-equal
branch
in
a
strong-mayor
system.
Independent Budget and Legislative Analyst To strengthen legislative capacity, the Working Group recommends reestablishing a permanent Budget
and
Legislative
Analyst
office,
similar
to
the
offices
used
in
Los
Angeles,
San
Diego,
and
the
California
Legislature.
The
office
would
provide
independent
analysis
of
budgets,
fiscal
9 impacts, policy interactions, staffing implications, and operational capacity. The Council’s independent
analytical
capacity
is
essential
to
oversight
and
better
budget
decision-making.
Mayor Veto and Budget Line-Item Veto The report supports giving the Mayor a general veto and budget line-item veto so that the executive
branch
has
a
targeted,
accountable
tool
to
promote
negotiation
and
coordination
with
key
decision
makers.
The
key
policy
rationale
is
precision:
a
budget
line-item
veto
is
less
disruptive
than
forcing
the
Mayor
into
an
all-or-nothing
choice
on
the
full
budget.
Council
would
retain
the
power
to
override
vetoes
by
supermajority,
preserving
the
balance
of
power.
The proposed budget line-item veto framework is intended to reduce crisis governance, encourage
negotiation
before
final
adoption,
and
improve
public
clarity
about
exactly
which
items
are
in
dispute.
It
is
not
designed
to
diminish
Council’s
budget
role,
but
to
make
the
budget
process
more
transparent
and
collaborative.
Strong Mayor, Strong Council The Working Group’s conclusion is that Oakland should not choose between executive clarity and
legislative
strength.
It
should
have
both.
A
strong
Mayor
with
authority
to
manage
city
operations
and
veto
legislation
is
paired
with
a
strong
Council
that
sets
policy,
controls
the
legislative
process,
confirms
appointments
where
required,
conducts
hearings,
and
exercises
independent
oversight
supported
by
its
own
analytical
staff.
In
the
Working
Group’s
view,
a
strong
executive
and
a
strengthened
legislature
are
not
competing
ideas;
they
are
two
halves
of
a
coherent,
accountable
system.
Department Head Confirmation Framework The proposed Charter amendment establishes a targeted confirmation process for a limited set of
senior
department
leadership
positions
central
to
city
operations,
fiscal
management,
workforce
administration,
and
infrastructure
delivery.
At
the
same
time,
the
proposal
preserves
the
core
principle
of
a
strong-mayor
system
by
recognizing
the
Mayor
as
the
City’s
chief
executive
responsible
for
managing
operations
and
leading
the
executive
branch.
To
balance
oversight
with
operational
efficiency,
the
proposal
requires
the
Council
to
act
on
nominations
within
30 calendar
days
or
the
nominee
is
deemed
confirmed.
This
framework
supports
accountability
while
allowing
Oakland
to
remain
competitive
in
recruiting
and
retaining
highly
qualified
department
leadership
and
avoiding
prolonged
vacancies
in
critical
operational
roles.
Fiscal Impact
The immediate fiscal impact of forwarding charter amendments to the voters is expected to be limited
to
standard
election-related
and
administrative
costs
associated
with
ballot
placement
and
public
notice.
Potential ongoing fiscal impacts may include salary adjustments for elected officials if the compensation
framework
is
updated
by
the
Ethics
Commission
and
any
resources
associated
with
a
Council
budget
and
legislative
analyst
office.
10 The Working Group’s report frames these changes as investments in better governance:
stronger
budget
discipline,
clearer
accountability,
better
oversight,
and
more
effective
service
delivery
can
reduce
downstream
costs
associated
with
confusion,
duplication,
delays,
and
workarounds.
Public Outreach and Interest
The Working Group’s community engagement was extensive and was central to the recommendations.
The
report
states
that
the
process
included
more
than
750
residents
engaged
through
public
meetings
and
listening
sessions,
more
than
60 interviews
with
current
and
former
city
leaders
and
subject-matter
experts,
14 community
sessions
across
Oakland,
and
one
session
focused
on
current
city
staff.
The
facilitators
also
compiled
research
and
community
input
for
review
by
the
Working
Group.
The Working Group letter and report further explains that the process was designed to be inclusive,
nonpartisan,
and
Oakland-focused,
with
SPUR
and
the
League
of
Women
Voters
of
Oakland
co-facilitating
the
work.
The
letter
emphasizes
that
the
recommendations
emerged
from
direct
conversations
with
everyday
Oaklanders
and
from
comparative
study
of
other
municipal
models.
Coordination
Staff worked with the Office of the City Attorney in drafting the Charter Reform legislation, along with
coordination
with
the
Mayor's
Charter
Reform
Working
Group,
the
League
of
Women
Voters
of
Oakland,
and
SPUR
throughout
the
process.
City
staff
also
coordinated
with
relevant
internal
policy,
budget,
and
communications
functions
to
align
the
report,
resolution,
and
proposed
Charter
language
with
the
Working
Group’s
recommendations.
Sustainable Opportunities
Economic: The proposal supports a more stable and predictable fiscal environment by clarifying authority,
strengthening
budget
oversight,
and
improving
executive-legislative
coordination.
Those
changes
can
reduce
delay,
improve
capital
and
operating
planning,
and
make
it
easier
for
the
City
to
deliver
services
that
support
business
activity,
neighborhood
investment,
and
long-term
economic
resilience.
Infrastructure: A more coherent governance structure can improve the City’s ability to plan, approve,
and
implement
infrastructure,
transportation,
climate,
and
sustainability
priorities.
Better
coordination
between
the
executive
and
legislative
branches
can
also
help
Oakland
make
more
reliable
decisions
about
capital
projects,
maintenance,
permitting,
and
service
delivery
that
affect
environmental
quality
and
hazard
resilience.
Race and Equity
Improving functionality and access for historically marginalized communities has the universal benefit
of
lowering
barriers
and
advancing
good
governance
for
all
residents
of
Oakland.
This
is
described
by
Angela
Glover
Blackwell,
founder
of
Policy
Link
as
the
curb-cut
effect.
11 The Working Group repeatedly noted that ambiguity in governance disproportionately burdens residents
with
the
least
time,
resources,
or
political
capital
to
navigate
City
Hall.
Clarifying
roles,
strengthening
direct
service
pathways,
and
expanding
Council
capacity
can
reduce
reliance
on
personal
relationships
and
informal
workarounds.
Making
Council
service
explicitly
full-time
and
aligning
compensation
with
the
role’s
demands
also
broadens
who
can
realistically
serve,
which
supports
a
more
representative
and
equitable
democracy.
Darlene Flynn, Director, Department of Race and Equity: Embedding fairness and justice (equity)
in
everything
the
City
does
is
a
policy
by
ordinance
passed
by
City
Council
action
in
2015,
with
strong
community
support.
Advancing
equity
requires
City
system
change
calibrated
to
close
outcome
disparities
and
improve
service
effectiveness
to
uplift
conditions
in
underserved
communities
in
Oakland.
Institutional
change
is
a
challenging
proposition,
and
it
is
complicated
by
unclear
executive
accountability
for
its
implementation
across
departments.
Strong,
cohesive
commitment
to
data
driven
analysis
and
outcome
focused
action
from
the
top
would
expedite
installation
of
solutions
that
serve
Oaklanders
equitably.
Conversely,
the
current
arrangement
delays
progress
in
advancing
life,
giving
change
that
is
on
the
critical
path
to
the
City
of
Oakland
becoming
a
thriving,
healthy
place
for
all.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL Adopt the attached resolution expressing the City Council’s intent to place the Charter Reform measure
before
the
voters,
approving
the
policy
framework
reflected
in
the
Working
Group
report,
and
directing
staff
to
prepare
the
final
ballot
language
and
related
materials
consistent
with
the
Council’s
action
and
applicable
law.
For questions, contact Preston Kilgore, Deputy Chief of Staff, [email protected] This memo was prepared by Preston Kilgore, Deputy Chief of Staff.
12 APPENDIX A - MEMBERS OF THE MAYOR’S WORKING GROUP ON CHARTER REFORM Fred Blackwell - CEO, San Francisco Foundation.
Hon. Barbara J. Parker - former Oakland City Attorney.
Corey Cook - Vice President and CEO, Cal Poly Solano Campus.
Ben Rosenfield - Public Finance Expert.
Zach Goldman - Policy and Labor Leader.
Ahmed Ali Bob - Board Chair, Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.
Mark Morodomi - former Counsel, Oakland Public Ethics Commission.
Richard Fuentes - Manager of Special Projects, Executive Office of Performance and Budget, BART.
13 APPENDIX B - WORKING GROUP LETTER (VERBATIM)
April 9th, 2026
RE: Referral of Charter reform to the ballot
Honorable Councilmembers,
We are Oakland residents, community advocates, labor leaders, and business representatives who
were
honored
to
serve
on
the
Charter
Reform
Working
Group,
and
we
stand
behind
the
community
engagement
process
and
the
final
recommendations
of
our
report.
While
we
all
have
different
backgrounds
and
life
experiences,
and
don’t
agree
on
everything,
we
unanimously
concluded
that
Oakland
needs
structural
change,
and
the
City
Council
has
an
opportunity
right
now
to
make
it
happen.
We Worked Independently with a Laser Focus on Oakland, Our City Our process was designed to be inclusive of community feedback, combined with comprehensive
study
of
other
successful
models,
both
of
which
led
to
our
recommendations.
Mayor
Lee,
in
partnership
with
Council
President
Jenkins
and
Councilmember
Ramachandran,
convened
the
Working
Group,
set
the
initial
goals,
and
then
stepped
back.
This
process
was
not
engineered
to
reach
a
predetermined
conclusion.
SPUR
and
the
League
of
Women
Voters
of
Oakland,
two
nonpartisan
organizations
with
a
focus
on
good
government,
co-facilitated
the
work.
We
examined
the
pros
and
cons
of
both
models
for
city
governance
without
any
prior
ideological
commitment
to
either.
Over five months, the Working Group conducted more than 60 one-on-one interviews with current
and
former
city
council
members,
city
administrators,
department
heads,
labor
leaders,
business
representatives,
and
policy
experts.
We
held
14 public
community
sessions
across
all
council
districts
and
administered
a
survey,
ultimately
engaging
more
than
750
Oakland
residents.
We
were
part
of
that
process.
We
showed
up.
We
listened
and
learned
from
everyday
Oaklanders
from
all
walks
of
life.
The
recommendations
that
emerged
reflect
what
Oaklanders
believe
is
needed
to
address
the
city’s
pressing
needs.
There is Consensus on the Root Cause of Oakland’s Governance Problems Interviews, surveys, and direct conversations revealed a broad consensus. The core problem is that
there
is
a
misalignment
between
public
expectations
and
the
Charter-defined
authority
of
the
City
Council,
Mayor,
and
City
Administrator.
This
is
the
formal
root
of
Oakland's
dysfunction.
We
have
for
many
years
operated
with
separate
legislative
and
executive
branches.
However,
we
have
lost
the
tools
to
ensure
they
work
together
effectively.
Aligning the Charter language with the right tools to support the already established system solves
the
problem.
A
system
that
establishes
a
truly
strong
mayor
in
charge
of
operations
and
a
city
council
that
legislates
and
provides
effective
oversight
would
create
a
balance
of
powers
and
the
foundation
for
clear
lines
of
authority
and
accountability.
The
mayor
and
the
council
would
be
set
up
to
succeed
in
the
roles
they
were
elected
to
accomplish.
A
strong
executive
and
14 a strengthened legislature are not competing ideas; they are two halves of a coherent, accountable
system.
The Proposed “Third Option” is a Confusing and Unique System That Doesn’t Solve the Underlying
Problems
We also want to speak plainly about the supposed "third option" that former proponents of the council-manager
model
have
put
forth
as
an
alternative.
First,
it
is
not
really
a
third
option.
It
keeps
the
core
elements
of
council
manager
systems
-
placing
the
mayor
back
on
the
council
and
appointing
a
city
manager
to
run
the
city.
It
creates
a
hybrid
by
giving
the
mayor
a
veto
power.
This “third-option” is a negotiated local compromise that only exists in one city, Long Beach. It is not
a
replicable
design
standard
recognized
in
scholarly
research
or
advocated
for
by
practitioners.
It
directly
contradicts
the
advocates'
arguments
that
the
City
should
adopt
a
model
used
by
many
other
cities.
Veto power exists to balance authority between two distinct branches of government. The “third option”
obscures
the
fact
that
giving
a
veto
power
to
a
mayor
who
is
a
member
of
the
city
council
is
fundamentally
different.
In
a
strong-mayor
system,
the
mayor
operates
independently
-
fully
empowered
to
run
the
city
and
deliver
services
-
and
uses
the
veto
to
ensure
that
policy
decisions
reflect
real
operational
constraints.
The
council,
in
turn,
holds
override
power
as
a
counterbalance.
Together,
these
checks
create
incentives
for
both
sides
to
collaborate
and
align
budgets
and
policies
around
shared
goals.
Giving the veto to a mayor sitting as head of council does not foster that same productive interaction.
Instead
it
creates
an
imbalance
that
is
difficult
to
justify
and
harder
to
explain
to
the
public.
When
the
mayor
supports
a
measure,
that
support
counts
as
one
vote.
When
the
mayor
opposes
a
measure,
the
veto
raises
the
threshold
for
passage.
That
is
not
a
balanced
structure;
it
gives
the
mayor
a
tool
for
obstruction.
The Working Group’s recommendations were carefully tailored to develop a coherent system that
balances
operational
realities,
budget
decisions,
and
policy.
Diluting
the
proposal
or
substituting
a
unique
system
would
repeat
exactly
the
samekind
of
confusing
structure
that
led
to
the
dysfunctional
governance
system
that
exists
today.
Polling Data Indicates that Voters Support Our Recommendations Importantly, whatever moves forward must have the support of voters. The polling data affirms the
conclusions
reached
by
the
Working
Group
after
extensive
dialogue
and
engagement
with
residents.
Three
independent
polls,
conducted
by
different
organizations,
at
different
times,
with
different
methodologies,
have
reached
the
same
conclusion.
A
February
2026
poll
by
the
East
Bay
Polling
Institute
found
64%
of
voters
support
amending
the
city
charter
to
adopt
a
strong-mayor
system.
The
2025
Oakland
Chamber
of
Commerce
Pulse
of
Oakland
Poll
found
61%
of
likely
voters
in
support,
with
half
actively
opposing
a
council-manager
alternative,
and
only
13%
choosing
it
as
their
first
choice.
A
March
2026
poll
released
by
SPUR
and
conducted
by
David
Binder
Research
found
63%
of
likely
November
2026
voters
prefer
a
strong-mayor
15 system, with 73% supporting mayoral veto power subject to a two-thirds Council override, and 72%
supporting
an
independent
Budget
and
Legislative
Analyst
Office.
These
show
unequivocal
support
for
the
Working
Group's
recommendations.
Conclusion
More than 750 Oaklanders participated in this process. We were among them. We are asking you
to
respect
the
process
and
honor
our
commitment
to
a
better
Oakland
for
all.
We
urge
you
to
advance
a
ballot
measure
that
reflects
the
Working
Group’s
recommendations
and
the
will
of
Oakland
voters.
Oakland has a real opportunity to get this right. The process was credible. The community showed
up.
The
evidence
is
clear
and
the
public
is
ready.
We urge you not to let this moment pass.
Sincerely,
Fred Blackwell Barbara J. Parker Corey Cook Ben Rosenfield Zach Goldman Ahmed Ali Bob Mark Morodomi Richard Fuentes
16 APPENDIX C - FAQ ADDENDUM
The FAQ can be found here and will be included as part of the file.
17