# Tiebreaker vote by Mayor Barbara Lee allows voters to decide who governs Oakland > Source: > Published: 2026-06-17 03:10:28+00:00 **Getting your** [Trinity Audio](//trinityaudio.ai)player ready...OAKLAND — Mayor Barbara Lee may soon find herself in the sole position to shape Oakland’s future if voters this fall [approve her plan to strengthen the authority](https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/06/11/oakland-strong-mayor-council-debate/) of the city’s top elected leader. She got her first taste of that power Tuesday, breaking a rare tie vote by the Oakland City Council to send [perhaps her most consequential legislative proposal](https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/06/16/oakland-strong-mayor-explained/) since taking office to the November election ballot. Lee will now campaign for Oakland’s residents to [grant her crucial veto power over city policies](https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/06/03/oakland-mayor-power-increase-election/), along with a host of other reforms to a governance structure [widely seen as flawed for how it splits responsibilities](https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/06/06/oakland-barbara-lee-strong-mayor-government/) between the mayor, council and a hired city administrator. Voters [could effectively place Lee](https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/10/oakland-strong-mayor-city/) — and future mayors — among the most powerful city leaders in California, alongside the top officials in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The former congresswoman will separately seek reelection to a full term on the same November ballot. Lee promises the proposal would centralize accountability in a diverse, often dysfunctional city, arguing Tuesday that the Oakland’s “current system too often makes it impossible to know who is responsible when things go wrong.” “That’s all we’re being asked to do,” Lee said of Tuesday’s vote, “to trust voters with that choice.” Her successful push sets the stage for a political showdown in Oakland, where currently the mayor lacks legislative authority over the city council, which determines the budget and all of Oakland’s policies. The administrator, who serves under the mayor, runs daily city operations. It remains to be seen how Lee’s vision — which would evolve the city past a “hybrid” government format devised by former Mayor Jerry Brown — will be received by voters in November. “I believe this particular measure, as it is drafted, will be weaponized against the mayor,” said Councilmember Carroll Fife, who voted to advance the legislation Tuesday while acknowledging that her “base has literally asked me not to support this.” Under Lee’s proposal, the mayor would replace the administrator in overseeing most of the local government’s department heads, while also being able to veto not just legislation but specific line items in city’s two-year budget. The council would need six-out-of-eight votes to override a mayoral veto. Lee, in an interview this week, vowed to “seldom, if ever” veto a council decision. On the other hand, voters could grant the council abilities to directly oversee city staff; subpoena records and testimonies with the backing of state law; and establish an independent office to provide third-party analysis of policies and the city’s finances. Still, some council members remained hesitant Tuesday to cede its bottom-line lawmaking authority, even after the eight-member body had voted 5-3 earlier this month to advance Lee’s proposal. Councilmember Ken Houston, a key swing vote, switched to siding against the measure after amendments he had proposed — including a requirement for the mayor to attend certain council meetings and a lower threshold to override a veto — went nowhere. “This has nothing to do with my mayor,” Houston said of his misgivings, noting his confidence in Lee’s integrity. “I’m worried about who’s going to come after her.” Houston dissented alongside council members Janani Ramachandran, Noel Gallo and Zac Unger, the last of whom had briefly sought to place a popular alternate governance structure before voters. “It’s not a good idea to have two competing ballot measures,” said Unger, who favors a “council-manager” format in which the mayor serves as a voting member of the council while the administrator oversees city affairs. Proponents of the “strong-mayor” model, which will appear on the November ballot, say it simplifies the city’s share of power, positioning the mayor as a sole executive whose decisive authority brings other city officials to the table. Councilmember Charlene Wang, who earlier this month was a source of full-throated support for Lee’s plan, has said the format allows an elected leader — instead of a hired official — to implement laws directly, cutting through the city’s bureaucratic red tape. Wang, however, failed to garner her colleagues’ support for amendments allowing the council to vet the mayor’s choice for the administrator role. Fife, before casting a “yes” vote on Lee’s plan, expressed concern that a strong-mayor model places too much pressure on the electorate to choose the right mayor at a time when well-heeled donors are pouring money into politics — both in Oakland and across the country. In the end, though, Fife said she believes “voters have a right to decide whether they want a strong mayor or not.” “What we have (currently) does not work,” she said, “and we need a better system.” *Shomik Mukherjee is a reporter covering Oakland. Call or text him at 510-905-5495 or email him at shomik@bayareanewsgroup.com. *