Oakland considers huge pay bumps for council members

Oakland, a city plagued by corruption scandals, public safety crises, and dysfunction at City Hall, is now considering a controversial proposal that could more than double the pay of its council members. Mayor Barbara Lee and city leaders are contemplating a report that suggests reforming the city charter through a November ballot measure to establish a stronger mayor system. However, one particular recommendation has sparked outrage – a significant increase in council members’ salaries.

The report, conducted by SPUR and the League of Women Voters of Oakland, proposes conducting a survey to determine “market-appropriate compensation for full-time legislative work.” This could mean that City Council members, currently earning around $109,000 and set to rise to nearly $115,000 in July, could see their salaries raised to levels comparable with cities like Los Angeles or San Diego. If implemented, this could result in a salary increase of between 69% and 125% for council members.

Critics, including former Alameda County supervisor candidate Chris Moore, have slammed the proposal, calling many current council members “inept.” Moore expressed concerns that the potential pay raises could lead to the council being controlled by employee unions, further exacerbating the city’s issues.

If voters approve the proposal to convert council members into full-time officials with benefits, the total compensation could reach as high as $318,145 per member annually, including health care, pensions, and other benefits. This could cost taxpayers an additional $1.96 million to $3.04 million per year for the eight-member council.

Oakland has faced recall elections in recent years that ousted former mayor Sheng Thao and Pam Price, the previous district attorney for Alameda County. The city has struggled with a structural deficit, failed to meet police staffing targets, and declared “extreme fiscal necessity” while pushing for new parcel taxes.

While the charter reform report suggests giving the mayor more powers and reducing the influence of council members in policy decisions, it raises questions about whether the proposed pay raises are justified. The report highlights a sense among officials that “everyone is in charge, and therefore no one is in charge,” indicating a need for more effective governance in the city.

Ultimately, the decision on whether to approve significant pay raises for council members will rest with the voters. As Oakland continues to grapple with various challenges, including financial instability and governance issues, the outcome of this proposal could have far-reaching implications for the city’s future.