A disgraced Oakland city administrator who quit after sexually suggestive text messages about female colleagues became public could still walk away with more than $400,000 in taxpayer money, if one councilmember gets his way.

Councilmember Ken Houston proposed a resolution directing the city to pay former City Administrator Jestin Johnson a $409,737 severance package, even though Johnson resigned voluntarily in May and was not entitled to severance under the terms of his original employment agreement. Houston pulled the resolution from the council's meeting agenda but said he could bring it back later this year.

Johnson left office after private text messages he sent to a subordinate in 2024 surfaced publicly. In one exchange, Johnson described a high-ranking female city official in graphic terms, telling the subordinate he had to "force myself to only look in her eyes" and that "she had me a little giddy yesterday when we had to take pics." In another message, he wrote: "My goodness, [she] has a helluva walk." Johnson also reportedly referred to a separate female staffer as his "kryptonite."

Houston's rationale: pay now or pay more later

Houston framed the proposed payout as a cost-saving measure. He told KQED he came up with the idea on his own and had not spoken with Johnson about it. His argument: if Johnson sues the city, the legal fight could cost Oakland far more than the severance check.

"I'm a business person, I'm proactive. If he sues, which I would do if I was in his position, it will cost the city."

Houston also posed the question in dollar terms:

"Is it better to give up $400,000 than $3 million with all the expenses?"

The $3 million figure is Houston's own estimate. The article does not cite any independent legal analysis supporting that number, and Johnson himself has made no public statement about suing the city or seeking severance. The resolution, as proposed, would require Johnson to waive all future legal claims against Oakland in exchange for the payout.

Under Johnson's original employment agreement, he was entitled to six months of severance if the city terminated him without cause. But Johnson resigned. That distinction matters: his departure did not trigger the severance clause in his contract. Houston's resolution would effectively override that contract language and hand Johnson money the agreement says he is not owed.

Oakland's mayor stays silent while residents push back

The mayor's office declined to comment on the proposal. That silence left Houston as the only city official publicly defending the idea, and left residents to fill the vacuum.

On Reddit, one Oakland resident captured the frustration plainly:

"Oakland taxpayers, it's time to get LOUD. These are our tax dollars going to waste. Look at how bad our basics are in Oakland like schools, roads, crime. We need to vote these city council members out and put in place people who give a d*** about the basic Oaklander."

Sam Singer, a public relations firm leader, offered a sharper summary of the dynamic at work. "Oakland residents get dysfunction. City Hall insiders get paid," Singer said.

The pattern is familiar in Democratic-led cities and institutions: officials face serious misconduct allegations, resign or are pushed out, and then the question shifts from accountability to how generously the taxpayer will cushion the landing. It is a pattern that extends well beyond Oakland. A scandal-plagued Democratic Senate candidate in Maine recently tested his party's willingness to tolerate misconduct, and the answer was not reassuring.

Johnson's texts described female colleagues in explicitly personal terms

The text messages that ended Johnson's tenure were not ambiguous. In a 2024 exchange with a subordinate, Johnson commented on a high-ranking female city official's physical appearance and described his own reaction to being near her. He told the subordinate the official "had me a little giddy" and that he had to consciously limit where he looked during their interactions.

A separate message about a female staffer, the one Johnson reportedly called his "kryptonite", included the comment about her walk. These were not offhand remarks between friends. They were messages from Oakland's top appointed official to someone who worked under him, about women who worked alongside both of them.

The conduct fits a broader pattern among Democratic officeholders and candidates whose personal behavior has collided with their public responsibilities. In Utah, four women accused a Democratic congressional candidate of unwanted sexual advances, three of them elected officials themselves. In Missouri, a Democratic prosecutor was suspended after allegations of affairs involving a defense lawyer and a domestic violence defendant.

Johnson resigned. He was not fired. He was not charged. And now a colleague wants to pay him more than $400,000 of public money to go away quietly, on the theory that he might, someday, file a lawsuit that no one has yet threatened.

Houston's preemptive payout has no lawsuit to preempt

The core problem with Houston's argument is the absence of an actual legal threat. Johnson has not publicly stated he intends to sue. Houston told KQED he had not even spoken with Johnson about the matter. The councilmember described the resolution as "proactive," but paying $409,737 to settle a lawsuit that does not exist is not proactive. It is speculative generosity with someone else's money.

Houston pulled the resolution from the agenda, but he did not withdraw it. He left the door open to bring it back before the year ends. That means Oakland taxpayers face the prospect of revisiting this fight in the months ahead, possibly after public attention has moved on.

Meanwhile, the questions the proposal raises remain unanswered. What legal theory would Johnson rely on to sue a city he voluntarily left? Did the mayor's office weigh in privately before declining to comment publicly? And why is a single councilmember freelancing a six-figure payout without any apparent coordination with city leadership?

California's governance failures are not confined to Oakland's city hall. A federal corruption probe involving a Newsom appointee has raised separate questions about accountability at the state level. The common thread is an institutional culture where insiders protect insiders, and the public picks up the tab.

Johnson's employment contract did not entitle him to severance because he resigned. Houston's resolution would rewrite that outcome after the fact. If the council eventually approves the payout, it will send a clear message to every city employee in Oakland: misconduct is not a career-ender, it is a negotiating position.

Accountability means something only when it costs the person who earned it. In Oakland, the city council is weighing whether to hand that cost to the taxpayers instead.