I don't get why they wanna keep the mayor so powerful 
. Like, isn't it better if they can just make changes without one person having all that power? I mean, Oakland had this big recall thingy last year and it was because of a bad city manager... doesn't that show us that strong mayors aren't working out? 
They should try the model charter system from some other city in US, that sounds way more fair
. Like, if the city council is in charge and can just fire someone if they're not doing their job, then how can corruption happen? 
It's all about accountability you know? And it looks like thousands of cities have already tried this system and it worked out pretty well... so why do Oakland leaders wanna go against that advice? 
. Like, isn't it better if they can just make changes without one person having all that power? I mean, Oakland had this big recall thingy last year and it was because of a bad city manager... doesn't that show us that strong mayors aren't working out? They should try the model charter system from some other city in US, that sounds way more fair
. Like, if the city council is in charge and can just fire someone if they're not doing their job, then how can corruption happen? It's all about accountability you know? And it looks like thousands of cities have already tried this system and it worked out pretty well... so why do Oakland leaders wanna go against that advice? 