Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendment Auditor Treasurer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate over eliminating elected auditor and treasurer stalls after heated public comments
Summary
A council subcommittee proposed a charter amendment to remove Alameda’s elected auditor and treasurer, citing redundancy and $84,000 in annual savings; incumbents and dozens of public commenters opposed the change and a motion to consolidate offices failed to attract a second, so no final action was taken.
A proposal to put a charter amendment on the ballot that would eliminate Alameda’s elected city auditor and city treasurer drew extended debate and vocal public opposition Tuesday, but the council did not adopt the measure.
Subcommittee members argued the offices are largely redundant with a professional finance staff and third‑party auditors and cited projected annual savings of about $84,000. Vice Mayor Michelle Pryor and others said the question should go to voters. Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft emphasized she wanted voters to decide whether to keep the elected offices.
Incumbent City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy told the council he was not trying to "preserve my job" but warned that eliminating the positions would "blindfold the public," and cited past instances where the treasurer and auditor raised alarms over financial risks. "We need independent elected watchdogs," Kennedy said. City Auditor Kevin Kearney likewise described the auditor’s office as an independent watchdog that protects staff whistleblowers and the public interest.
Multiple residents and advocacy groups urged the council to retain the offices, saying elected officials provide independence that cannot be fully replicated by appointment or outside auditors. After a period of questioning, a motion to consolidate or otherwise move forward failed for lack of a second; council discussion continued but council chose not to adopt a ballot placement tonight. Several councilmembers proposed follow‑up workshops and potential alternatives if the city pursues governance changes in the future.
Councilmembers asked staff and the city attorney for additional information about oversight alternatives, the legal process for charter changes, and potential transition language to protect continuity if any change were later adopted.
