---

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

---

When the Oakland City Council placed Measure X on the Nov. 8 ballot, they threw in everything but the kitchen sink.

Term limits. Council salaries. Rules for tie votes. Hearings on proposed ballot measures. Rules governing the political activities of the city attorney and city auditor. Expanded duties and staffing for the city auditor.

Most of the proposed changes to the city charter would be good. One key change is not. They should have never been stirred together in one pot. Voters should have been able to evaluate these ideas separately, not as part of one take-it-or-leave-it package.

Nevertheless, voters should approve Measure X. The benefits outweigh the harm.

The most problematic and highly touted part of the package is term limits. It’s a feel-good idea that doesn’t necessarily lead to better governance and can often lead to key loss of knowledge in leadership positions.

However, the proposal in Measure X is term limits lite. It would only apply to council members. (Oakland’s mayor already has a two-term limit.) It would limit council members to three consecutive terms rather than the two used in many cities. It would allow someone who has served three terms to return after sitting out for one. And it would allow someone to serve three terms as a district council member directly followed by three as the citywide at-large member.

So, for those who want tough term limits, this isn’t it. Which we’re fine with. It makes it easier to support Measure X for its other, less-visible but more important parts.

The most significant and positive parts of the measure are the changes to the city auditor’s position. In a city of often-fiscally reckless council members, the auditor’s independent oversight is critical.

Measure X would expand the powers of the auditor to include more areas of inquiry in city government and increase the staffing of her office from 11 full-time employees to a minimum of 14. It would also add to the qualification requirements — which currently call for the officeholder to be a certified public accountant or a certified internal auditor — to also include a minimum of three years of relevant public sector or equivalent private sector experience.

And Measure X would protect the independence of the city auditor and city attorney by prohibiting them from financially supporting, campaigning for or endorsing candidates for public office in Oakland. The city auditor would also be prohibited from running for an office over which she has audit jurisdiction.

Measure X would require two, rather than one, public hearings before placing a bond or parcel tax measure on the ballot. In a city where politicians are obsessed with new tax measures, the more opportunities to reflect before acting, the better. We’d prefer to see this provision even tougher, applying to all taxes, indeed all measures, the council places on the ballot.

The measure would also count a council member’s abstention or absence as a no vote for determining whether there is a tie. This should end the gamesmanship on the eight-member council in which someone sits out on a vote to prevent a 4-4 tie under which the mayor can provide a tie-breaking fifth vote for passage.

Determination of the salaries of the city attorney and the city auditor would be moved from the City Council to the Public Ethics Commission and would be based on salaries of their highest paid subordinates, other city department heads and comparable positions elsewhere in the state. Again, more independence for the two positions and compensation commensurate with the job. All good.

And Measure X would make minor adjustments to the way the ethics commission determines the salaries of council members.

This measure should have been broken into its parts. But that’s not the option voters face. Given the up-or-down choice they have, voters should approve Measure X.