Dysfunction and chaos have become the order of the day at Oakland City Hall. This turmoil is making it nearly impossible to run the city efficiently. Moreover, the pressing issues that plague our city — lack of job growth for all, street repair, safety (physical, property and fire), proper funding of pensions and homeless programs — grow worse from a lack of attention. Our city government seems to be at an all-time low in effectively running our city.

For instance, it has been difficult to get the five votes needed to decide important issues, such as: a new contract for the fire department; effectively addressing homelessness; driving growth, including helping generate affordable housing; and keeping the Raiders and Warriors.

Headlines would have the casual observer believe our issues are rooted in the battle among City Council members Desley Brooks and Anne Campbell-Washington and Mayor Libby Schaaf, the latter two suggesting that Brooks is primarily responsible for the lack of agreement in City Hall. Disagreement, when handled cordially, can be healthy. The issues are not ones of personality; they are structural.

Problems of governance have long existed, and will continue to exist even as council members come and go. It is too easy to scapegoat Councilwoman Brooks for the council’s problems. As the battles for council seats in Districts 2 and 6 ensue, unless the structural issues are addressed, and notwithstanding changing faces, government inefficiency will continue.

Accountability is our primary need. Currently, everyone is in charge, but no one is in charge. The mayor submits a budget; then the City Council rewrites it. Once the budget is adopted, is the mayor or the council responsible for the results?

The mayor hires the city administrator, but not the department heads.

And the mayor can break a tie vote but cannot veto a bill.

Council members are not supposed to direct city staff, but if they do, there are few consequences.

The mayor is limited to two terms, but there are no term limits for the council members. Without term limits, there is precious little chance for new ideas to be brought in or stalemates to be ended.

We can address these structural issues in a fairly straightforward manner. Borrowing from the playbook of best practices for high-performing cities, Oakland can:

•Establish that the mayor directs the administration, including appointing and removing department heads;

•Give the mayor veto power, subject to an overrule by a supermajority of the council;

•Ensure that council members are not interfering with the daily operations of government — their job is to set policy;

•Let the mayor create the budget with council input, and then hold the mayor accountable for results;

•Limit council members to three terms.

To achieve these reforms, it will take true leaders who avoid the politics of personality and act in the best interests of our city. This will take the focus off any one council member and the mayor, and move the question to: “How does the mayor work effectively with a more unified council?”

Bryan R. Parker is launching a new tech startup and has been active in Oakland politics.