Zac’s Corner: Charter Reform
by Zac Unger, City Council District 1
Hey folks, buckle up because it’s time to talk about charter reform. If you’re reading this, you’re someone who follows Oakland politics and government pretty closely, so you’ve probably already heard a little about this. (If you’re reading this and don’t follow Oakland politics, it means you’re just a Zac Unger fan and also that you need to find some new hobbies.)
The Charter is essentially our city constitution and it delineates the separations of powers. If you’ve ever been annoyed because you can’t figure out who’s responsible for what in Oakland, join the club; us elected officials are annoyed too! Some cities have a so-called “strong mayor” system and some cities have what’s called a “council manager” or “strong council” system. In Oakland we have a few elements of each, which means that we kind of have nothing. The bottom line is that, in Oakland, the buck stops nowhere. And that’s a problem. It’s not the only reason for our municipal dysfunction, but it’s a large factor. As things stand right now, people come to their council member for help fixing local problems like potholes, garbage piles, overgrown trees, etc, which makes perfect sense. And yet it’s literally against the law for a council member to direct a city employee on what to do. This leads to confusion, frustration, and slow response times.
Now it’s time to do something about this mess. A group led by former City Manager Steven Falk (who did several stints as interim Manager in Oakland) did a round of focus groups and raised the profile of the issue. Then Mayor Barbara Lee appointed a commission to do even more public outreach and study and come back with recommendations.
So what are the differences between the systems? There’s a lot of nuance, but the basic take home is this: a strong mayor system puts executive power in one elected leader so, theoretically, voters know who’s responsible. A Strong Council / Council-Manager proposal puts operational power in a professional manager so, theoretically, bad politicians can’t wreck the city.
Proponents of a strong mayor system say that it allows for clear responsibility, fast decision-making, better coordination of city operations, and improved budget discipline.
Proponents of strong council argue that having the council hire a professional manager allows for long-term stability and professionalization, guards against inept or corrupt politicians, and distributes decision-making amongst multiple elected council members, allowing for more voter input, more debate, and shared responsibility that provides collective political cover for difficult decisions.
Opponents of strong mayor warn against investing too much power in one potentially unfit person. They caution that running a city mostly involves boring nuts and bolts stuff that should be overseen by a professional manager, not a politician.
Opponents of strong council warn that this system makes it hard to know who is ultimately in charge of anything. They worry it leads to gridlock, political infighting, and that it makes it harder to drive big policy shifts.
So what do the experts recommend? Well, Steven Falk—lifelong city manager—recommends a strong council manager type of government. The committee appointed by our mayor recommended a strong mayor system. As for me—current city councilmember—I lean towards a stronger city council. Shocking, huh? I’m being a little glib, but it’s hard not to think of the old maxim that “where you stand depends on where you sit.”
There is real merit in either choice. What we have now is a broken system, and while I might lean one direction, we’re going to be better off no matter what we choose just by virtue of actually, finally, making a real choice. As with any program, we’ll only be as good as the people we elect and appoint into these positions. Potholes don’t get filled by org charts; they get filled by a well-staffed team that prizes responsiveness and functionality from top to bottom.
I do feel strongly about a couple of things if we end up going with a strong mayor system. First, I think council needs professional legislative and financial analysts on staff, like we had in years past. In addition, a strong mayor system should retain an elected (rather than an appointed) city attorney. Without these things we would lose the ability to have true checks and balances on the power coming from the mayor’s office.
Now that the ideas are out there, it’s up to the council to write actual charter reform legislation. This will be done over the next several months. It will be debated at city council meetings and then in November it will be on the ballot for all of you to decide. Please speak up, let us knows what you think, educate yourself on the choices, show up to meetings, and make public comment. There’s no definitively correct answer to this question, but I’m excited by all the energy and civic engagement I’m seeing around this pretty esoteric topic. Let’s keep it up!
