Oakland Councilmember Proposes $409,737 Severance for City Administrator Who Resigned Over Crude Texts About Female Colleagues

Oakland City Councilmember Ken Houston floated a resolution this month that would have handed former City Administrator Jestin Johnson a $409,737 severance package. Johnson resigned in May after private text messages surfaced showing him making sexually suggestive comments about female city employees.

Houston pulled the item from this week's council agenda before it could be voted on. He told KQED he plans to bring it back later this year.

What Johnson Actually Wrote

The texts at the center of this were not vague or deniable. In one 2024 exchange, Johnson told a subordinate he had to control himself around a high-ranking female city official, writing, "I'm telling you, you have to sit next to her. I have to force myself to only look in her eyes. She had me a little giddy yesterday when we had to take pics."

In another message, Johnson called a female staffer his "kryptonite" and wrote, "My goodness, [she] has a helluva walk."

Johnson resigned in May once the messages came to light, according to the New York Post. His lieutenant was allegedly involved in similar exchanges about female colleagues.

The Severance Math

Johnson's original employment contract entitled him to six months of severance only if he was terminated without cause, according to the New York Post. A resignation under these circumstances does not meet that bar. That's presumably why Houston needed a separate council resolution to manufacture a payout in the first place.

Houston's justification is blunt. He says Johnson was effectively pushed out, and a wrongful-termination or retaliation lawsuit could cost the city far more than $400,000 once legal fees and potential damages are factored in.

"I'm a business person, I'm proactive," Houston told KQED. "If he sues, which I would do if I was in his position, it will cost the city." He framed it as a cost-benefit calculation: "Is it better to give up $400,000 than $3 million with all the expenses?"

Cities settle nuisance claims all the time rather than roll the dice in court. The deal as floated would require Johnson to waive any future legal claims against the city in exchange for the money, which is standard practice in severance-for-release agreements.

The Core Problem

Houston came up with this proposal on his own, by his own account, without even talking to Johnson first. There's no indication a lawsuit threat actually exists. No claim has been filed. No demand letter has been made public. Houston is preemptively offering to pay off a lawsuit that, as far as the public record shows, nobody has threatened yet.

Settling an active, credible legal threat is fiscally sane. Inventing a hypothetical one to justify a $400,000 taxpayer-funded exit bonus for a guy who resigned over crude texts about his own employees is different entirely.

Oakland has real problems. Residents on social media pointed to failing schools, crumbling roads, and persistent crime as the city's actual priorities, with one commenter writing, "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." That's not a partisan complaint. It's a math problem: Oakland is not a city with money to burn on preemptive legal insurance for a departing executive.

What Happens Next

The Oakland mayor's office declined to comment on the proposal, according to the New York Post. No vote has been scheduled. Houston says he may reintroduce the resolution later this year, which means this isn't dead, it's dormant.

The unresolved question is simple: has Johnson or his attorney actually threatened litigation, or is this entirely Houston's own preemptive strategy? If no threat exists, the "avoid a costly lawsuit" argument collapses, and the payout looks like exactly what Oakland residents are calling it, a reward for someone who left in disgrace. If a real legal exposure does exist, the city council owes taxpayers a public accounting of what that exposure actually is, backed by their own legal counsel, before any check gets written.