Oakland’s Council Wants a 125% Raise. Here’s Their Record.

Despite its reputation as one of the most dysfunctionally governed cities in America, Oakland wants to give its city council members a raise.

A November ballot measure, packaged as charter reform, would formally make council seats full-time positions and prohibit members from holding outside employment. That’s the stated rationale for higher pay. The proposal emerged from a process co-facilitated by SPUR and the League of Women Voters of Oakland — serious organizations lending serious credibility to what is, at bottom, a request for more money from a government that has not earned it.

How much more? Benchmarked to Los Angeles and San Diego, the raise would land between 69% and 125%. Council members currently earn about $109,000 a year, already rising to $115,000 in July. When you add health care, pensions, and benefits, total compensation could reach $318,145 per member annually. Eight members. Up to $3.04 million more per year for taxpayers.

The proposal comes from a report by Mayor Barbara Lee’s Charter Reform Working Group, co-facilitated by SPUR and the League of Women Voters of Oakland, two respected civic organizations whose good-government logic makes sense in a vacuum. Outside a vacuum, in an actual city called Oakland, it lands differently.

K

Kane 謝凱堯

@kane

Progressive politicians in Oakland, after increasing crime and the deficit, are going to give themselves 125% raises.

C

California Post

@californiapost

Oakland - one of 'most corrupt cities in America' - considers huge pay bumps for council members trib.al/zUpe8YV

Mar 26, 2026

82 99 393 31.9K

Mar 27, 2026

1 1 1 90

What $318,000 Buys You

Before we get to the fiscal math, let’s look at what the current council is actually delivering for the salaries they already have.

Councilmember Carroll Fife had the worst attendance record on the council in 2024, missing roughly 19% of votes taken. That’s one in five. Councilmember Noel Gallo was identified by Oaklandside as the worst individual offender on California Public Records Act violations, part of a pattern of council-wide transparency failures the investigation documented. Councilmember Ken Houston was accused by the city’s own transportation and public works chief of trying to “rig” a $10.4 million paving contract. Then, separately, he called police to secure the release of an illegal dumping suspect he appeared to have a personal relationship with.

Oakland’s own charter reform report captured the dysfunction with a withering self-assessment: “If everyone is in charge, no one is in charge.” That’s the council’s own hired analysts describing the body that now wants a six-figure pay bump.

The City They’re Running

The city is saddled with a projected structural deficit well north of $100 million. Oakland has repeatedly declared “extreme fiscal necessity,” pushed new parcel taxes on residents, and still can’t staff its own police department. OPD is down to 509 sworn officers against a target of roughly 700, giving Oakland the fewest police per crime of any major American city.

The city solves 0.5% of property crimes. The peer city average is 7.3%. One-fourteenth the rate. And now the council wants a raise.

Emergency response times collapsed from 14 minutes pre-pandemic to 48 minutes on average in January 2024. When you call 911 in Oakland, you could wait nearly an hour to get assistance.

The Corruption Context

The pay raise arrives in the middle of an accountability crisis that is not subtle.

Former Mayor Sheng Thao was recalled by Oakland voters, then federally indicted in an alleged bribery scheme involving a waste hauler company. Her original election win came by just 677 votes out of 125,000 cast, a margin that may have been secured through an allegedly illegal $75,000 attack mailer campaign. Former District Attorney Pam Price was also recalled by Oakland-area voters, part of what has become a wave of accountability elections reshaping the city’s politics.

Two of the city’s last three top elected officials couldn’t finish their terms. The council’s response is to ask for more money.

Chris Moore, a former Alameda County supervisor candidate and public safety advocate, offered the sharpest assessment of where that money would actually go:

The Real Theory of the Case

The argument for higher council pay is a real one, in theory. Make council seats full-time, prohibit members from holding outside employment, and you might attract better candidates — more dedicated to governance, less dependent on side income. That’s precisely what this proposal does. Moore acknowledged the appeal: “The good side, if it was feasible, is getting responsible people on the City Council. But the potential benefit would take a very long time to attain.”“

But banning outside employment doesn’t make council members less dependent on political support. If anything, it does the opposite. When your only income is the council seat, you need to win re-election more than ever. And in Oakland, winning re-election means keeping the public employee unions happy. The council already proved this: they gave raises to those same unions while running a $100 million deficit, and now they want raises for themselves. Follow the incentives and the story writes itself.

The internal contradiction runs deeper. The charter reform proposal would give the mayor more power and reduce the policy influence of individual council members. So the argument is: strip the council of authority, and pay them more to have less of it. Oakland’s own report said "everyone is in charge, therefore no one is in charge.” The proposed fix is to make the council less in charge, and better compensated for it.

That said, giving the mayor more power is the one part of the charter reform package that does make genuine sense. About 73% of likely Oakland voters support granting the mayor veto power, and 63% back the overall reform framework. Mayor Barbara Lee called the numbers “a clear message: Oaklanders want accountability, and they want a city government that can actually get things done.” She’s right about the accountability part. That’s exactly why voters should separate the charter reforms they want from the pay raises they’re being bundled with.

A 125% raise for a council that skips votes, ignores public records laws, rigs contracts, and presides over a city where you wait 48 minutes for 911 to answer isn’t a reform. It’s a reward.

Vote yes on giving the mayor real authority. Vote no on rewarding the council that created this mess. Those are two different questions, and Oakland voters deserve the chance to answer them separately. If the council won’t split the ballot measure, that tells you everything you need to know about who this proposal is actually for.