Oaklanders raised a big stink the last time city staff tried to give the mayor a pay raise. To avoid that in the future, the Oakland Public Ethics Commission is recommending a new, more predictable way to calculate salary increases for the mayor.
Last Wednesday, the commission agreed that the mayor’s salary should be automatically adjusted every two years for inflation, capped at a maximum 5% increase. Every fourth year the commission, which would oversee this process, will have the option of adjusting the mayor’s salary at its discretion, but the increase can’t be greater than inflation over the prior two years plus 10%. The commission would also be able to waive or reduce the salary increase if the city is facing a fiscal crisis.
The commission unanimously approved this recommendation, which it’s sending to the city administrator, who will decide whether to follow the advice of the volunteer body as he crafts legislation on the salary issue. The commissioners chose their recommendation from a menu of six options compiled by commission staff, and they expressed some reservations about it.
“I still feel uncomfortable with how much discretion that leaves the PEC, or anybody for that matter, in setting the mayor’s salary,” said Commissioner Charlotte Hill. “I would really want us to put more thought as a commission into how we could more specifically lay out our standards ahead of time for those four-year review periods.”
Why the ethics commission is involved in figuring out the mayor’s salary
The commission got involved with this issue because the Oakland City Council received a wave of negative and misleading media coverage when word got out in July that it was considering giving the mayor a $75,000 pay raise.
Oakland’s city charter requires City Council to review the mayor’s salary every other year and approve adjustments. The council uses a formula in the charter that says the mayor’s salary “shall not be less than 70% nor more than 90%” of the average salaries of city managers or chief executives of six California cities with populations higher and lower than Oakland. This formula was devised many years ago by the city, but some residents unhappy with Thao over her firing of the former police chief, rising crime, and other issues, campaigned against any pay increase for her.
City staff had recommended Thao get a $75,000 pay raise—the higher end of that scale—because it would put her salary closer to the average earnings of city managers and executives in the comparison cities.
Following the public outcry, councilmembers approved a $13,000 increase for the mayor—the lowest possible raise under the current formula, raising the position’s salary to $216,000. Two councilmembers—Noel Gallo and Treva Reid—refused to vote for the mandatory pay increase, citing the city’s financial problems. Thao also asked the council to approve the lowest possible salary for herself.
The council tasked the city administrator with proposing legislation to amend the City Charter in November 2024 to make the mayor’s salary the responsibility of the Public Ethics Commission. There’s precedent for this because the commission currently sets the salary for the city attorney, city auditor, and councilmembers.
The commission agreed at its October 25 meeting that it was an appropriate body for setting the mayor’s salary, but didn’t agree on a method for determining pay adjustments. Some commissioners wanted an automated process that took the decision mostly out of their hands, thus avoiding politicizing the issue.
To recap, here’s what the commission decided, and here are the options it rejected
The Public Ethics Commission voted last Wednesday on a plan that would give them the power to adjust the mayor’s salary every two years to account for inflation, capped at a maximum 5% increase. Every fourth year the commission will have the option of adjusting the mayor’s salary at its discretion, but the increase can’t be greater than inflation over the prior years plus 10%.
In order for this to become the official way the city sets the mayor’s salary, the city administrator must present this plan to the City Council. Then the council has to approve it and place it on the ballot at an upcoming election for voters to make the final call. That’s because the section of the City Charter that determines the mayor’s pay needs to be amended.
The plans the commission reject were as follows:
- Peg the mayor’s salary to that of an Alameda County Superior Court judge. This year county judges earned $231,174. This is how several other cities set the salaries of their mayors, including Los Angeles and Fresno.
- Adjust the mayor’s salary for inflation every two years, capping increases at 5% or up to 10% at the PEC’s discretion. The commission would also have the option of waiving or reducing a salary increase if the council declares that Oakland is facing an extreme financial crisis.
- Tie the mayor’s salary increases to the pay raises the largest non-sworn public employee union in Oakland gets, which is currently SEIU 1021. Under this plan, the commission would adjust the mayor’s pay every two years based on whatever percentage change Local 1021 gets. For example: the local’s members got a 10% pay increase spread out between 2022 and 2024.
- Give the PEC discretion to set the mayor’s salary every four years, taking into consideration the salaries of chief executives in other cities, city department heads, and inflation. This is similar to how the commission sets the salaries for the city attorney and city auditor, but it forces commissioners into an uncomfortable political role.
- Using the city charter’s current formula, but only make adjustments every four years.
