57Fal l 2003

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

Oakland’s “Strong Mayor” Reconsidered

Four and a half years after Jerry

Brown won Oakland voters’ trust

to become the city’s first “strong

mayor,” Oakland residents are

giving their city charter another

look. A Charter Review Com-

mittee, formed in April 2003,

prepared a list of considerations

for the City Council this summer

to revise the measure that grant-

ed Brown increased powers on a

trial basis.

In 1998, Oakland voters over-

whelmingly approved Measure X,

elevating the newly elected Brown

to chief executive of the city, a

position previously held by the city

manager. The city manager, who

used to report to the City Council,

now answers to Brown. The trial

was set to expire or be renewed by

voters in November 2004, after a

period of evaluation.

“The mayor should have some real

authority, not just ceremonial

law,” Brown said in an interview in

the fall of 2002. Having modeled

his civic structure on the separa-

tion of power at the state and

national levels, Brown went so far

in his argument to call the old

council-manager form of govern-

ment “undemocratic.”

As a strong mayor, Brown has the

authority to hire and fire the city

manager and department heads.

He can veto council actions, which

can be overridden only by a two-

thirds council vote. The mayor also

controls proposal of the budget,

which the city manager helps

develop and the City Council

approves. Measure X removed

Brown from the City Council,

adding in his stead an eighth, at-

large council member. The mayor

now weighs in on council votes

only in case of a tie.

Deciding that four years was

enough, Brown drafted a new mea-

sure to make it permanent, two

years before it was planned to sun-

set. Brown added Measure CC to

the November 2002 ballot,

intending to forgo evaluation and

solidify Oakland’s strong-mayor

charter amendment.

Oakland Chamber of Commerce

President Joseph Haraburda sup-

ported the new measure, praising

the leadership and vision that

strong mayors wield to promote

business and prosperity. “I only

hope future mayors will have the

city’s best interests at heart,” he

said last November.

Measure CC sparked strong oppo-

sition from some City Council

members as well as from good-gov-

ernance groups such as the

League of Women Voters and

Common Cause, who questioned

the urgency. With the motto “Why

rush it?” the league held a series

of public forums to discuss the

details of the measure. The league

contended that its opposition to

Measure CC was a matter of

process, and not against the strong

mayor in particular.

Still, other opponents felt that the

measure endowed the mayor with

too much authority, raising doubts

about the competency of future

mayors with less experience or lead-

ership to perform as strong mayor.

Measure CC failed to get the two-

thirds vote it needed to pass in

2002, and in March the City

Council approved forming the

Charter Review Committee to

revisit Measure X before it sunsets

in November 2004, agreeing to

place the committee’s recommen-

dations on the March or November

2004 ballot.

The Charter Review Committee

consists of fifteen members in all,

B Y B R E N T M C D O N A L D

58 Nat ional Civ ic Review

with seven members appointed by

the mayor (one as chair); the City

Council appointed another seven

members, one from each respec-

tive district. Together the League of

Women Voters and Common Cause,

both good-governance groups,

appointed the final member.

Helen Hutchinson, the league’s

appointee, says the committee is

debating not the merit of strong

mayor as much as other aspects of

the measure that many deem are

separate. Oakland voters, she says,

will still determine whether the

charter becomes permanent or the

city opts for a different structure

altogether.

In addition to creating a strong

mayor, Measure X provided for an

elected city attorney and voter-

approved salary increases for coun-

cil members. “I feel very strongly

that these should be individual

items and not a combination,” says

Hutchinson. “There isn’t any logi-

cal tie between an elected city

attorney and a strong mayor.”

Nor do council members appreci-

ate having to campaign for a raise.

Voters rejected a $6,000 salary

increase for council members last

year. So when City Auditor Roland

Smith approached the City Council

in April suggesting that the mayor

receive a hike of 10 to 41 percent

on his annual $115,372 salary,

Council President Ignacio de la

Fuente chastised Smith for his

proposal and promptly removed it

from the agenda. Smith’s report

adhered to a 1988 charter amend-

ment that based the mayor’s salary

on the average city manager’s

salary of the six California cities

closest in population to Oakland.

Although the mayor may deserve a

higher salary, to take one during

this economic freeze would be

politically irresponsible. Mayoral

spokeswoman Erica Harrold sug-

gested to an Oakland Tribune

reporter that Brown would more

likely lower his own salary and

encourage other city executives to

do the same.

While discussion will address

these peripheral aspects of the

measure, Hutchinson expects that

the committee will focus more on

the pros and cons of the strong

mayor structure.

Greater leadership and accounta-

bility are two qualities often touted

in support of a strong mayor.

However, the path of accountabili-

ty running straight to the executive

branch requires that the mayor

and city manager have a solid

working relationship. The partner-

ship between Mayor Brown and

City Manager Robert Bobb is cred-

ited for much of Oakland’s resur-

gence during the dot com boom of

the late 1990s. The economy has

gone into the tank since, but

Brown and Bobb still manage to

avoid the gridlock that stymied ini-

tiatives under the old council-

manager structure.

The success or failure of a strong

mayor depends a lot on experience

and personality, according to

Bruce Cain, head of the Institute

for Governmental Studies at the

University of California at Berke-

ley. “No structure is going to sub-

stitute for good politics,” he said.

Even though many of America’s

great cities—among them New

York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and

San Francisco—have visible,

charismatic strong mayors, Cain

said, “you never design a charter

Bruce Cain, head of the Insti-tute for Governmental Studiesat the University of Californiaat Berkeley, says that the suc-cess or failure of a strongmayor depends a lot on experi-ence and personality. “Nostructure is going to substitutefor good politics.”

59Fal l 2003

on an individual—you design for

the best governance of the city.

Checks and balances must be

worked into the charter.”

Tom Ammiano, president of San

Francisco’s Board of Supervisors,

underscored the importance of

keeping a strong mayor in check.

Mayor Willie Brown changed San

Francisco to a strong mayor sys-

tem in 1995. In the eight years

since, Willie Brown’s administra-

tion has been plagued by corrup-

tion, cronyism, and micromanage-

ment. Ammiano said that the

board has tried to introduce ways

to temper the mayor’s power of

appointment. “We all have to be

very careful of demagoguery and

shortcomings in the democratic

process,” he said in a phone inter-

view last fall. Considered a popu-

lar candidate for San Francisco’s

2003 mayoral race, Ammiano said

he might back an initiative to

reduce the mayor’s power. “The

process can be a bit bumpy,” he

said, “but my preference has

always been for a weaker office.”

Jerry Brown petitioned to put

Measure X on Oakland’s ballot in

1998 while campaigning in the

city’s mayoral race. Oakland’s

economy was booming and the

measure passed with a whopping

75 percent voter approval, just two

years after Mayor Elihu Harris pro-

posed a similar increase in may-

oral power and failed.

Terry Christensen, an author and

political science professor at San

Jose State University, says it takes

a strong leader to create the strong

mayor system. “You need a Jerry

Brown to carry the cause,” said

Christensen, speaking of the ex-

California governor and 1992 pres-

idential candidate. “If I went out

onto the streets of San Jose and

asked if we should adopt a strong

mayor, people would look at our

current mayor and say, ‘No way!’”

Oakland City Council President De

La Fuente is a former mayoral rival

of Jerry Brown’s and is expected to

make another run for the city’s top

job. He supported Measure CC last

year. “People have tried to intro-

duce the strong mayor in the past,

but all failed,” said De La Fuente

last fall. “Jerry Brown is the only

one to succeed. Whoever comes

next should have equal chance to

be a strong mayor.”

De La Fuente may have that oppor-

tunity sooner rather than later.

Rumors are circulating that Jerry

Brown might leave the mayor’s

office midterm to run for higher

office, as will a number of poten-

tial candidates attracted to the

empowered office, including Cali-

fornia State Senator Don Perata

(D-Oakland), who is also rumored

to be seeking the office. “All major

cities have at least debated this

issue, and many have moved

toward empowering the mayor,”

said Christensen.

Christensen was scheduled to visit

with Oakland’s Charter Review

Committee in June to discuss

alternatives to the strong mayor,

weak mayor dichotomy. The coun-

cil-manager form of governance is

most common, he says, but many

growing cities are moving toward

empowering the mayor.

San Jose and San Diego are two

examples of growing midsized

cities in California seeking greater

leadership. Both have opted for a

more balanced mayor-council sys-

tem over a mayor with chief exec-

utive powers. When Ron Gonzales

was elected mayor of San Jose in

1998, the city attorney, city man-

ager, and director of redevelop-

ment agency all resigned. Gon-

zales nominated replacements

who shared his vision for improv-

ing the city, and the city council

gave final approval.

According to Christensen, as cities

grow they begin looking for alterna-

tives to the traditional council-man-

60 Nat ional Civ ic Review

ager system. “Some make the big

switch,” he said, “while others make

the more evolutionary change.”

Jerry Brown’s ballot attempt to

guarantee the strong mayor system

failed by a slight margin last year,

but it remains to be seen how

Oaklanders will vote when Measure

X comes up again in 2004. Con-

siderations by the Charter Review

Committee this summer will help

determine that outcome. But with

Oakland schools now under state

control, street crime on the rise,

and new police corruption surfac-

ing, one thing remains clear: future

mayoral candidates—strong or

weak—will have promises to make

in these hard economic times.

Brent McDonald is a freelance reporterand graduate student at the North GateSchool of Journalism, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

For bulk reprints of this article, pleasecall (201) 748-8789.