Oakland's Dysfunctional City Hall Needs Less Strong Mayor, More Reform.
The city of Oakland needs less a strong mayor and more reform when it comes to its governance structure. After months of deliberation by the charter reform working group, led by Mayor Barbara Lee, the project has failed to deliver meaningful change. The working group's recommendations focus on creating a powerful mayoral system that could lead to corruption and special interest dealings, echoing the tumultuous past of Tammany Hall.
A strong-mayor system is detrimental to Oakland due to its vulnerability to corruption. In recent years, Oakland experienced the Sheng Thao recall, which highlighted the city's susceptibility to unqualified or incompetent leaders who can cause irreparable damage.
In contrast, Oakland could benefit from implementing a model city charter, developed by the National Civic League. This approach outlines a system where a democratically elected board of directors oversees a professional executive who can be fired at any time. The city manager would run council meetings, set agendas, and determine committee appointments.
The success of this system is evident in other cities across the United States. Since its introduction in 1900, thousands of US cities have adopted the model charter, coinciding with a significant decline in urban corruption levels. It also ensures accountability by allowing the City Council to swiftly terminate an underperforming city manager and hire a new one within months.
In contrast, the mayor's working group is not focusing on delivering transparent, responsive, or effective governance but rather promoting a strong-mayor system that "aligns with public expectations." This approach ignores decades of evidence about what works in cities across America.
If this proposal moves forward, it could lead to all future mayors being strong mayors, which is unlikely to be supported by the public. The Oakland Charter Reform Project's co-founders argue that the city needs reform and a more effective governance system.
The city of Oakland needs less a strong mayor and more reform when it comes to its governance structure. After months of deliberation by the charter reform working group, led by Mayor Barbara Lee, the project has failed to deliver meaningful change. The working group's recommendations focus on creating a powerful mayoral system that could lead to corruption and special interest dealings, echoing the tumultuous past of Tammany Hall.
A strong-mayor system is detrimental to Oakland due to its vulnerability to corruption. In recent years, Oakland experienced the Sheng Thao recall, which highlighted the city's susceptibility to unqualified or incompetent leaders who can cause irreparable damage.
In contrast, Oakland could benefit from implementing a model city charter, developed by the National Civic League. This approach outlines a system where a democratically elected board of directors oversees a professional executive who can be fired at any time. The city manager would run council meetings, set agendas, and determine committee appointments.
The success of this system is evident in other cities across the United States. Since its introduction in 1900, thousands of US cities have adopted the model charter, coinciding with a significant decline in urban corruption levels. It also ensures accountability by allowing the City Council to swiftly terminate an underperforming city manager and hire a new one within months.
In contrast, the mayor's working group is not focusing on delivering transparent, responsive, or effective governance but rather promoting a strong-mayor system that "aligns with public expectations." This approach ignores decades of evidence about what works in cities across America.
If this proposal moves forward, it could lead to all future mayors being strong mayors, which is unlikely to be supported by the public. The Oakland Charter Reform Project's co-founders argue that the city needs reform and a more effective governance system.
. This mayor Barbara Lee has this group workin' on reform but all it seems like is another way for her to get even more power 
. I mean, we need better governance not more of the same thing. Have you seen those other city charters? They're doin' just fine without strong mayors 
. It's like they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" 
. Oakland needs accountability and transparency now 
, let's not be stuck in this loop of corruption again 
.
It just seems like that setup would lead to corruption and bad decisions getting made because of personal interests. I mean, think about it, if the city manager has no power and can be fired easily, it's more likely that someone with actual experience will be making the big decisions.
Like, who needs a mayor making all the moves when you've got a board of directors who are accountable to the public? It just makes sense. And with the city manager being able to run meetings and set agendas, it's like they'd be super focused on getting things done.
Like, thousands of cities have been using this model for over 100 years without any major problems. It just seems like common sense to me.
I think they should try to implement that model city charter in Oakland instead of pushing for a strong-mayor system... it seems like it could bring some real accountability to their city hall 
this new proposal for a strong-mayor system is just a bunch of code words for "more power and control" over the city... meanwhile, they're ignorein all the success stories from other cities that used the model city charter system. i mean, why would we want to go down that road again? it's like they're tryin to set us up for another disaster 
. And honestly, the city manager model seems way more transparent and accountable than just having some mayor make all the decisions in their own head 
. A model city charter like the one from the National Civic League seems like a way better bet 
. I mean, if the goal is to prevent corruption and ensure accountability, then this system makes more sense 
. It's not about "aligning with public expectations" 
.
instead let's bring in dat model city charter from the national civic league it's like 100% effective in other cities & we needz dis kinda accountability 
. On the other hand, a model city charter with a democratically elected board of directors and a professional executive could provide accountability 
and transparency 
.
. The success of this system is evident in US cities across America 
.
. Let's keep the focus on transparency and accountability 
, you know? Like, we've been talkin' about fixin' up Oakland's governance for ages, but it seems like we keep goin' back to the same old idea – a strong mayor. And I'm just not feelin' it, fam 
.
I feel for you, Oakland! 
. It sounds like a system where everyone is held accountable and can't get away with stuff 
and if a system like the model charter from the National Civic League works for other cities, why not try it out here? 
The idea of having a board of directors overseeing a city manager who's accountable to them sounds pretty cool. It's all about finding that balance between power and accountability, you know?