Should Oakland voters approve Measure EE? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Oakland voters should approve Measure EE on the November 3, 2026 ballot.

The plan would give the mayor more power, make the Council a full-time job, and add money checks.

What supporters say

• A new money-watch office could help the Council check city plans and spot waste.
• The plan makes it clearer that the mayor runs city workers and answers for their work.
• Council checks, like veto overrides and probes, could limit the mayor’s stronger power.
• Full-time Council jobs may give members more time for laws, talks, and work for local people.

What critics say

• The plan puts a lot of city power in one mayor’s office.
• The plan could add costs each year while Oakland faces money stress.
• Higher pay for Council members could raise concerns about the city’s worker costs.
• Studies raise concerns that one strong office could make abuse and weak checks more likely.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; strong proof matters more than a long list.

Oakland’s Measure EE would replace the city’s current hybrid system with a stronger mayor, a more full-time City Council and new fiscal oversight tools. The choice is between clearer executive responsibility and added governing capacity, or greater concentration of power and recurring costs.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure EE is that it would make responsibility easier to see. The mayor would become Oakland’s chief executive and manage most city departments, giving voters a clearer answer to the question of who is responsible for administrative performance. That could improve accountability, although there is no direct evidence that the change would improve services or city management. 1

The measure would not simply hand power to the mayor. It would also give the Council tools to challenge and investigate the executive, including the ability to override mayoral legislative and line-item budget vetoes. The proposal would expand the Council’s confirmation and investigative powers and create an independent Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office. These safeguards could balance stronger mayoral authority, but their effectiveness would depend on whether Council members can use them independently and often enough. 2

The analyst’s office is the most concrete example of a proposed oversight mechanism with a working counterpart elsewhere. San Diego’s official analyst reviews the mayor’s budget and publishes detailed reports for the City Council, showing that such an office can function in municipal government. That example does not prove Oakland’s office would save money or produce better decisions, but it makes the proposal institutionally plausible. 3

Measure EE would also require Council members to work full time and limit conflicting outside employment. Supporters say that could give the Council more capacity for constituent work, hearings, legislation and budget review. Still, the available evidence does not show that full-time councils necessarily deliver better services, stronger finances or greater accountability. 4

The case against

The central concern is that Measure EE would place substantial administrative and veto power in one office. The mayor would oversee most departments and gain legislative and line-item budget vetoes, subject to Council overrides. Those formal checks matter, but the proposal would still give the mayor more direct control than exists under Oakland’s current arrangement, and the evidence does not show that concentrated authority improves city performance. 5

Research also raises a warning about assuming that a stronger mayor automatically produces greater accountability. One peer-reviewed observational study found that council-manager cities were 57 percent less likely than mayor-council cities to have corruption convictions. The study does not prove Measure EE would cause more corruption: it looked at existing government systems, measured convictions rather than overall accountability or service quality, and did not isolate Oakland. But it provides a reason for caution.

The financial costs are clearer than the likely benefits. The city Auditor estimates first-year costs of $2 million to $2.6 million. That includes $1.7 million to $1.8 million for the analyst’s office and $288,000 to $867,000 for additional Council salaries and benefits. The costs would continue and rise with inflation, at a time when Oakland faces a reported structural deficit of roughly $120 million a year and pressure to cut spending. 6

Higher Council pay could help recruit officials willing to serve full time. But it would also create a recurring expense and a public-perception problem if elected officials appear connected to decisions about their own compensation. The proposed rules would allow the Public Ethics Commission to set salaries by comparing them with other full-time public officials.