Oakland's former city administrator, Jestin Johnson, received a secret payout of over $160,000 after resigning in disgrace due to sexually suggestive text messages about female colleagues. Johnson remained on the city's payroll until July 15, nearly two months after his resignation was announced on May 17.
The substantial payment, totaling $160,272, was confirmed by the city's payroll department following a records request by The California Post. This sum included $1,500 for an automobile allowance, over $66,000 for administrative leave, and compensation for vacation days, sick days, and holidays. Regular earnings after May 16 accounted for only $4,700 of the total.
Mayor Barbara Lee had announced Johnson's resignation on May 17, framing it as an immediate parting of ways. Lee stated at the time that she would not tolerate transgressions of that nature under her watch and appointed an acting city administrator to signal a clean break.
However, Johnson's resignation email, dated May 16, indicated his resignation would be effective July 15, allowing him to transition smoothly over the subsequent weeks. He wrote in the email, "This decision was not made lightly, and I am committed to ensuring a smooth and thorough transition during this period."
The revelation of the payout comes at a time when Oakland is experiencing a severe budget crisis. The city's public information officer did not respond to requests for comment, and the mayor's office referred The California Post to Lee's previous statement, declining to answer questions about why Johnson's departure was presented as an immediate separation.
Further complicating the situation, Oakland City Councilmember Ken Houston is considering a proposal to offer Johnson a severance package of $409,737. This potential payout would require Johnson to forfeit any future legal claims against the city. Houston argued that the proposal is a proactive measure to avoid a potentially costlier lawsuit, stating, "If he sues, which I would do if I was in his position, it will cost the city." This idea has already drawn criticism on social media for its perceived misallocation of city funds.