Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee is facing three opponents in the Nov. 3 election who have never held political office before — community activist Brenda Grisham, serial candidate Mindy Pechenuk and former bank executive Julius Robinson.
Lee won the job in an April 2025 special election to replace Sheng Thao, who lost a recall election and is now embroiled in a federal corruption trial.
A Texas native, Lee served Oakland and northern Alameda County in Congress from 1998 to 2025. She also served in the state Assembly for six years and the state Senate for two. She earned an undergraduate degree from Mills College in Oakland and a master’s degree in social work from UC Berkeley.
She volunteered with the Black Panther Party in the 1960s and worked on the 1972 presidential campaign of Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman to seek a major political party’s presidential nomination.
Grisham is a public safety and victims’ rights advocate who helped lead a successful campaign to recall former Alameda County district attorney Pamela Price.
Her campaign website describes her as a business owner who has fought to improve neighborhood safety and government accountability, among other things.
Pechenuk, raised in Brooklyn, New York, is a Republican who was active in the recalls of Thao and Price. She describes herself as an educator and has run for state Assembly twice and Oakland’s at-large City Council seat once but has not yet won an election.
She also ran in the 10-candidate special election to replace Thao as mayor and was eliminated in the sixth of nine rounds of ranked-choice voting.
Robinson says he spent 47 years in banking, investment and community development where goals had to be clearly defined and results had to be delivered. He says he would bring that same type of disciplined leadership approach to governing Oakland.
All candidates submitted answers to a handful of questions about their policy priorities. Their answers are as follows:
Do you support Measure EE, which would change the way the city is run and increase the mayor’s authority and responsibilities? Please explain.
Lee: Oaklanders deserve a city government that works and delivers faster and more efficient services. Measure EE makes that possible through clear accountability, effective leadership and stronger checks and balances. Under Oakland’s current government structure, the buck stops with no one. The mayor appoints — but cannot direct — the city administrator. Measure EE makes the mayor the city’s chief executive, with clear responsibility for directing the city administrator and ensuring that city services meet the public’s needs. I will hire a professional, experienced city administrator to manage day-to-day operations.
Measure EE also pairs clear executive accountability with stronger transparency and oversight, including an independent Budget and Legislative Analyst office, Council hearings and subpoena authority, Council confirmation of key appointments, and the ability to override a mayoral veto with six votes. These checks are designed to ensure that greater executive responsibility comes with greater accountability.
Whether we’re addressing homelessness, improving public safety, stopping illegal dumping, or delivering basic services, Oakland residents deserve to know who is responsible — and to see results.
Grisham: I do not support Measure EE because I believe concentrating more power in the mayor’s office risks weakening shared decision making. Oakland needs accountability, transparency, and responsible financial management. I want leadership that works with the City Council and community to improve public safety, housing, and services for every resident.
Pechenuk: No, I do not support Measure EE. This is not what Oakland needs. We need to go back to a mayor on the city council, working with the city council, with veto powers. Our city government is too decentralized, with too much power in individuals’ weaponized hands. Measure EE gives the mayor too much control, we need a deliberative city government working for the interests of all Oaklanders. That worked well in the past till Mayor Jerry Brown changed things.
Robinson: Yes. I support Measure EE and the concept of a stronger mayor system with meaningful checks and balances.
Oakland’s current structure too often blurs responsibility among the mayor, City Council and City Administrator. When authority is dispersed too broadly, residents are left uncertain about who is responsible for results.
I believe the mayor should have clear executive authority to manage City operations, appoint accountable leadership and resolve operational and budgetary roadblocks. I also support a carefully defined line-item budget veto, subject to an appropriate City Council override.
A stronger mayor system should not mean unchecked power. The Council must retain its legislative, budgetary and oversight responsibilities, and independent institutions such as the City Auditor, Public Ethics Commission and civilian police oversight must remain protected.
The basic principle is that the person elected to lead the City should have sufficient authority to execute the agenda and should then be held accountable for the results.
Some Bay Area cities are canceling their Flock camera contracts. What is your position on the use of such technology in Oakland and how, if at all, would you change the current policy?
Lee: Oaklanders deserve safe neighborhoods and protection of their privacy. An independent review must verify compliance with standards that limit data access, sharing and retention; prohibit use for immigration enforcement or monitoring lawful protest; and require public reporting and Privacy Advisory Commission review.
Grisham: I personally advocated for Flock in Oakland, Alameda County and other cities. We have to use technology to bring balance to the city for many different reasons. We need additional eyes and ears, technology works best when you have trust in it and people are held accountable for misuse of any kind.
Pechenuk: Flock cameras have helped our police solve crime. Oakland needs the Flock cameras until we are able to get crime under control. Any technology is as good as the person managing the technology. In the hands of the good it does good. In the hands of the bad, it does bad. So let us make sure it is in the hands of the good.
Robinson: I believe automated license-plate readers can be valuable public-safety tools, but their use must be narrowly defined and surrounded by strong, enforceable safeguards.
I would support continuing Oakland’s use of Flock only if an independent review demonstrates both measurable public-safety value and effective privacy protections.
Searches should be limited to legitimate, documented law-enforcement purposes connected to a specific investigation, vehicle, alert or public-safety threat. The technology should not be used to monitor lawful protests, political participation, religious activity or individuals based solely on race, immigration status or another protected characteristic. I would also prohibit its use for general immigration enforcement, reproductive-health investigations or personal purposes.
Oakland’s data should not be shared, directly or indirectly, with federal, out-of-state or private entities when the intended use would violate California law or Oakland policy. Information unrelated to an active investigation should be retained for the shortest practical period and then deleted.
Before renewing any contract, I would require evidence of investigative results, complete access and sharing logs, verified compliance with privacy restrictions and meaningful review by the Privacy Advisory Commission.
My position is straightforward: this technology should be used as a focused investigative tool, not as a system of indiscriminate surveillance.
OPD recently got out from under federal oversight, but it took the department 23 years to enact the necessary reforms to do so. How can the city ensure OPD remains accountable to civilian leadership and the city’s residents going forward? Does the city need to change the way civilian oversight of the department works? If so, how?
Lee: We have reached a historic moment for the Oakland Police Department. After 23 years, federal oversight of OPD has ended. When I took office 16 months ago, I made a firm commitment to build on the cultural transformation already underway within OPD. During my first court appearance on July 10, 2025, I stated I wanted federal oversight to end under my watch, and I am deeply grateful to everyone who helped us accomplish this goal.
Constitutional policing is a core value of our City, and today, that commitment is no longer just aspirational, it is our standard. Under my administration, we have worked to strengthen the systems, leadership, and accountability necessary to make that standard sustainable to ensure we do not lose sight of why these reforms were required in the first place. My priority now is making those reforms permanent through constitutional policing and independent civilian oversight bodies. I will protect the Police Commission, Inspector General and Community Police Review Agency; insist on timely misconduct investigations; and require regular reviews of stops, use of force and discipline. When audits identify problems, OPD must publish corrective actions and report its progress.
Grisham: Ending federal oversight means Oakland must take responsibility for lasting police accountability. As mayor, I would strengthen civilian oversight through adequate staffing, independent investigations, clear authority, and public reporting on complaints, use of force, and corrective actions.
Yes, changes are needed to make oversight effective and responsive to residents. I would hold police leadership accountable for protecting public safety, respecting civil rights, and maintaining community trust.
Pechenuk: There needs to be big reform in Oakland civilian oversight of OPD. Right now, we have a civilian board that is weaponized against the OPD. We need a commission which is in dialogue with the police officers on duty. Oakland needs to talk with the officers and find out what they need. Many of our charter restrictions prevent our officers from doing their job.
Robinson: Exiting federal oversight should not mean that accountability ends. It should mean Oakland has finally developed the capacity to sustain reform on its own.
I would make constitutional policing, timely misconduct investigations and compliance with department policies permanent management responsibilities.
I support strong, independent civilian oversight and regular audits of use of force, stops, complaints and discipline, with public reporting that protects legally confidential information. The chief and command staff should be responsible for identifying and correcting problems promptly, including patterns revealed through early-warning systems.
I would protect the independence and adequate staffing of the Police Commission and other oversight bodies. I would not weaken civilian oversight simply because federal monitoring has ended.
At the same time, oversight must be effective rather than merely procedural. Recommendations should receive timely responses, corrective actions should have deadlines, and the public should be able to see whether those actions were actually completed.
No mayor can promise that problems will never occur. What we can do is build a system that identifies and corrects failures before they again become systemic.
How can the city balance its budget while continuing to provide services residents rely on? Where can the city spend less and how can it generate more revenue to avoid recurrent structural deficits?
Lee: We inherited serious financial challenges, and those challenges are not over. But we acted. Working alongside our City Council, we unlocked $334 million in bonds to rebuild our roads, modernize public facilities, and build affordable housing. We launched an independent forensic audit of municipal contracting to ensure every single dollar is spent with accountability, and we launched a comprehensive tech audit to fix what’s broken in Oakland’s systems and bring City Hall into the 21st century.
We passed a balanced budget that protects essential services, and we filled over 1,000 vacant city positions. My fiscal plan remains focused on addressing the City’s structural deficit and achieving structural balance, making existing dollars work harder, rebuilding trust in City government, strengthening Oakland’s economy and revenue base, and bringing in outside resources so taxpayers are not asked to carry the burden alone.
Grisham: As mayor, I would prioritize essential services — public safety, clean streets, infrastructure, and housing — and build a budget around realistic, recurring revenue.
I would review contracts, overtime, administrative spending, and vacant positions to reduce costs without weakening frontline services. Contractors and departments must demonstrate results for every dollar spent.
To increase revenue, I would improve collection of outstanding taxes and fines, put underused city property to productive use, and help businesses open, stay, and grow by improving safety and providing much needed support to our businesses.
We cannot keep using one-time money to cover ongoing expenses. I would require multiyear financial planning and regular public reporting so we address shortfalls early and restore financial stability.
Pechenuk: 1) Oakland needs a full outside audit of all departments, NGO and non-profits. 2) The only way out of debt is to grow your economy. We do not need more taxes. We do need to lessen permitting time to 30 days or less for building and construction. This means ensuring our businesses can once again flourish in Oakland. Bring in new industry, manufacturing, and apprentices programs. This includes 21 century technologies, such as physical AI. Unfortunately, Oakland leaders have driven out of the city most of its productive revenue, whether it be our sports teams, hotels, restaurants and businesses.
Robinson: Oakland cannot continue using temporary revenues to support permanent expenses. My first fiscal priority would be a multiyear financial recovery plan built on honest forecasting, performance-based budgeting and measurable departmental results.
Every department should identify its essential services, operating costs, vacancies, contracts and measurable outcomes. We should protect services residents rely upon while consolidating duplicative functions, freezing nonessential vacancies where appropriate, phasing in lower-priority initiatives and reducing or eliminating programs that cannot demonstrate results.
I would not use indiscriminate across-the-board cuts because they can weaken effective programs while allowing inefficient ones to survive.
Public safety is a good example of where smarter spending matters. Restoring critical civilian positions such as dispatchers, evidence technicians, crime analysts and records specialists can allow sworn officers to spend more time on patrol and investigations while helping control overtime.
But Oakland cannot cut its way to fiscal health. We also have to grow the economic base.
I would streamline permitting, support local and small businesses, expand access to capital, strengthen commercial corridors, attract private investment and major employers, increase housing production and improve public safety and cleanliness so Oakland becomes a more competitive place to invest and do business.
We also need to improve collection of taxes, fees, fines and other revenues already legally owed to the City.
My goal is not simply to balance the next budget. It is to create a structurally sustainable City government that protects essential services while expanding the economic activity that supports them.
How can the city improve transparency and ensure its leadership, particularly its elected officials, conduct city business in a way that is fair and open?
Lee: Oaklanders deserve a government that is transparent and accountable. From day one, we’ve taken decisive steps to strengthen City Hall, deliver better and faster results, and ensure public resources are used with integrity. In addition to our work on Charter Reform, I have initiated an independent forensic audit of every capital project and human services contract from the past three years, designed to ensure accountability for how public dollars have been spent and to identify needed reforms. I have also taken steps to modernize City operations and strengthen internal accountability, including launching a comprehensive independent audit of Oakland’s technology systems, starting with hiring and contracting practices, to produce the City’s first full inventory of all technology platforms and assess data governance, security, and disaster recovery.
Grisham: As mayor, I would make city decisions, spending, and results easier for residents to follow. That means timely publication of meeting materials, clear budget reports, accessible public records, and transparent contracting.
I would support independent ethics enforcement, timely disclosure of conflicts of interest, and recusal when officials have a personal or financial stake. Residents deserve meaningful opportunities to weigh in before decisions are made.
Fair government means consistent rules, no special treatment, and accountability for every elected official — including me. We must lead by example and not be afraid to hold others accountable.
Pechenuk: As mayor I would insist on financial radical transparency. This means every dollar the city spends is immediately recorded for the public to see. The results of the outside audit will be presented to every Oaklander. Oakland leaders need to stop their grifting, pay to play and even legally make laws that benefit their pockets.
Robinson: Transparency should allow residents to understand not only where the money went, but whether it produced the result that was promised.
During my first 100 days, I would establish public reporting of the administration’s commitments, responsible officials, deadlines, spending and results. I would build upon the work already being done by the City Auditor rather than duplicate it.
By day 100, I want residents to be able to see what was promised, what was spent, what was accomplished and where corrective action is required.
My office would also disclose substantive meetings with lobbyists and parties seeking City business, document recusals and cooperate fully with independent audits and ethics investigations.
If a former colleague, professional partner or organization from my business network seeks a City contract or favorable action, I would disclose that relationship, seek appropriate ethics guidance and recuse myself whenever the relationship could reasonably call my impartiality into question.
City contracts should be awarded through open processes using published criteria, documented scoring and appropriate independent review — not political relationships.
Please include any other statement you’d like us to see.
Lee: Illegal dumping is a public health and neighborhood equity issue. Since May 2025, Keep the Town Clean and city volunteer efforts have mobilized over 10,000 volunteers and removed more than 145 tons of trash. City crews cleared over 6,600 tons of debris, and average dumping work order closure times fell from 26 days to 5.5 days. We secured a $499,000 CalRecycle grant and championed Senator Jesse Arreguín’s SB 1218, now signed into law, allowing vehicle boots for repeat dumping violations with unpaid fines. We need reliable city crews, convenient free disposal and enforcement that keeps our streets clean. We are also changing the way Oakland fights illegal dumping by not just cleaning it up, but also working to stop it before it starts. We secured a $9.2 million investment from Crankstart to help us do that.
Grisham: I believe I am the right person to lead Oakland because I know this city, understand its challenges, and have spent more than 14 years serving our community not from behind a desk but from lived experience with the community. I was born and raised here, built businesses here, and bring experience in financial management, public safety advocacy, and supporting families here in Oakland and 13 years in Washington DC.
After losing my son Christopher to violence, I turned my pain into a commitment to serve. My priorities are safer neighborhoods, financial accountability, clean streets, and expanded housing opportunities. I will lead by example, listen to residents, and hold myself and others accountable. Oakland deserves leadership that turns commitments into results.
Pechenuk: I am the only candidate with a total vision for Oakland. No one else has the plan or the backbone to rebuild our physical economy with real jobs, bring our businesses back, and launch apprentice programs that give Oaklanders a future.
I am tough on crime and drugs. Oakland will not have open-air drug markets or illegal cannabis warehouses under my administration.
On homelessness: treatment first, mental health care, and apprentice programs that move people from the streets into productive work.
Oakland deserves results, not excuses, time to stop the managed decline of our city.
Join with Mindy, it is time to take Oakland back!
More information about the candidates can be found at their websites: barbaralee4oakland.com, brendaforoakland.com, electmindy.com, julius4mayor.com.
