The case we’ve made is this: Oakland’s Federal-style government has failed the City and its 440,000 residents. It strips the mayor of decision-making authority by denying her a policy-making vote. It frustrates council members, whose constituents expect them to oversee the city when, in reality, they have little control over day-to-day operations. It leaves the city attorney conflicted between two clients with different and sometimes opposing interests. And it has resulted in high turnover of the professional city administrator (six in the last five years!) which, in turn, negatively impacts the city’s budget, workplace culture, and operations.
Most California cities use council-manager systems, which are demonstrably more transparent, responsive, effective, efficient, fiscally responsible, and less corrupt. However, these systems are often criticized for having an “invisible” mayor who is not selected by voters. Also: people in larger American cities typically expect an elected mayor to run city hall – not an appointed city manager.
So, what’s the path forward? Are California cities really limited to just two options – “council-manager” or “strong mayor”? No. Is there a hybrid model that blends good features of both systems while avoiding their drawbacks? Yes. Emphatically, yes!
Over the last 50 years, several California cities – notably San Jose, Long Beach, and Riverside – have recalibrated the balance of power in their council-manager governments by empowering mayors in a system we’re calling a Unitary Strong-Mayor plan. If employed in Oakland, a Unitary Strong-Mayor system would deliver:
The strongest Oakland mayor in over a century.
An empowered city council, led by the Mayor, that selects, sets goals for, supervises, and evaluates the city manager/administrator.
A city attorney with just one client: the municipal organization.
A stable chief executive whose tenure is not tied to mayoral election cycles.