For those that missed the news update on Michele Ellson’s site, last night literally right after Closed Session ended at the City Council meeting, a whole mess of “media” type people were emailed with a Press Release accusing Councilmember Lena Tam of “official misconduct.”
The allegations are that she leaked “attorney-client privileged, personnel, and other confidential information” through a series of emails to a number of people and — interestingly enough — I am named as one of those individuals that received some of the correspondence that the case against Lena Tam is being built on.
According to the press release the case, which is now in the hands of the District Attorney to decide if she wants to move forward with sending this to the Grand Jury. Reading through all the alarmist language of the Press Release, apparently this entire case was built around the Interim City Manager rifling through Councilmember Tam’s official City email and then sending it off to a hired gun to “prepare an investigatory report and a supplemental report” to kick to the District Attorney for action.
So, of course, when I read my name I had a momentary panic attack. I started running through all the paranoid scenarios in my mind: would I need to hire a lawyer? Would someone start reading my email too? Is my phone tapped?
Then I remembered, I have nothing to hide. I’ve done nothing wrong and when I look back to review all the emails I have received from Councilmember Lena Tam that have been subject to “collection” by the Interim City Manager “over a period of months.” Everything I have received appears to be above board so it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. It’s no surprise that the only people listed by name in the Press Release as having allegedly received this “evidence of alleged misconduct” are individuals that have dared to be publicly (as opposed to privately) critical of Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant, including me, John Knox White and two key members of the Firefighters Union.
So, let me tell you a sampling of what I, personally, have received from Lena Tam over the past few months, because honestly, I don’t email her a lot and she doesn’t email me a lot either. I would never make the assumption that I had a close relationship with any City Council person to email them to say, “hey, can you send me this extremely confidential stuff, k thx bye!”
A sampling of what I have received includes a copy of the City Branding Survey in May, which I asked her if she knew anything about since I had received a tip from someone not Lena Tam about it. She send an email in April addressed to numerous other media sources like the Alameda Sun and The Island with a request for clarification of the charges to the SunCal account. Also in April she forwarded a note from the City Clerk clarifying who was the elections official for Alameda Unified School District elections. That’s the sort of stuff I get.
I did at least three or four read throughs of my emails to attempt to figure out anything that came close to “official misconduct” and have turned up with nada.
However, now I feel like I need to take a shower after the icky political smearing. This puts the knee jerk accusation of Brown Act violation as declared by the Mayor in a whole new light.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Let’s see what the D.A. does with this. The allegations are very serious. Michele Ellson’s article is well written and worth reading.
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/07/city-manager-seeks-tams-ouster/
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 7, 2010 @ 6:23 am
Here is the government code regarding dsclosure of confidential information by a member of a legislative body:
54963. (a) A person may not disclose confidential information that
has been acquired by being present in a closed session authorized by
Section 54956.7, 54956.8, 54956.86, 54956.87, 54956.9, 54957,
54957.6, 54957.8, or 54957.10 to a person not entitled to receive it,
unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that
confidential information.
(b) For purposes of this section, “confidential information” means
a communication made in a closed session that is specifically
related to the basis for the legislative body of a local agency to
meet lawfully in closed session under this chapter.
(c) Violation of this section may be addressed by the use of such
remedies as are currently available by law, including, but not
limited to:
(1) Injunctive relief to prevent the disclosure of confidential
information prohibited by this section.
(2) Disciplinary action against an employee who has willfully
disclosed confidential information in violation of this section.
(3) Referral of a member of a legislative body who has willfully
disclosed confidential information in violation of this section to
the grandjury.
(d) Disciplinary action pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
(c) shall require that the employee in question has either received
training as to the requirements of this section or otherwise has been
given notice of the requirements of this section.
(e) A local agency may not take any action authorized by
subdivision (c) against a person, nor shall it be deemed a violation
of this section, for doing any of the following:
(1) Making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district
attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived violation of law,
including disclosing facts to a district attorney or grand jury that
are necessary to establish the illegality of an action taken by a
legislative body of a local agency or the potential illegality of an
action that has been the subject of deliberation at a closed session
if that action were to be taken by a legislative body of a local
agency.
(2) Expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of
actions taken by a legislative body of a local agency in closed
session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal
or potentially illegal action.
(3) Disclosing information acquired by being present in a closed
session under this chapter that is not confidential information.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit
disclosures under the whistleblower statutes contained in Section
1102.5 of the Labor Code or Article 4.5 (commencing with Section
53296) of Chapter 2 of this code.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 7, 2010 @ 7:54 am
“The City Council voted 4-0 in closed session – a session Tam was asked to recuse herself from – to release the investigation results.”
One against the rest? “…now I feel like I need to take a shower…” apres moi le deluge
Comment by jayare — July 7, 2010 @ 8:45 am
After reading Michele’s article, it appears that Councilmember Tam repeatedly broached confidential closed-session information. Claiming she was simply doing her “due diligence” was a weak and pointless defense. Her actions are shameful.
Ms. Tam should do the right thing and resign NOW.
Comment by Neal_J — July 7, 2010 @ 9:33 am
If it’s just ICM Gallant out to get all the Pro Measure E folks, considering the trouble she is in for handing out city contracts without review to her cronies as you have reported here and on the SF Gate, why would the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and the rest of the city council vote unanimously in support of the resolution?
You and John are going to need more than showers to get through this storm, but you know the old saying, ” when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.”
Keep scratching, Lauren!
Comment by Gillico — July 7, 2010 @ 9:44 am
not just pro measureE she is trying to protect her job and a shift in the city council majority could rein her in at least. Beverly Johnson can’t be happy with her stunning loss throughout alameda to Wilma Chan (2 to 1) and she is looking towards her race for the council getting rid of Lena Tam is a no brainer. and what about and what about and what about?…. Alameda has always had contentious political issues, but it has never risen to the slime that we are seeing here.
Comment by barbara kahn — July 7, 2010 @ 9:53 am
Gillico:
The resolution was to release a copy of the reports. I’m fairly sure that if I were Councilmember Tam I would welcome the release of the reports as well.
Comment by Lauren Do — July 7, 2010 @ 9:58 am
I guess the city council thinks there is nothing else going on in Alameda they need to address. No problems with Alameda point, crime is zero, schools are great, and we have a budget surplus! that must be why they can waste time on shit like this.
Comment by E — July 7, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Neal,
At first read it does not “appear” good, but I’ll be real surprised if Lean has done something really blatant. There is a commenter over at the Island who posted about similar situation in other cities were the commenter had lived with indication that in the past the accused ended up being absolved. Every case is different and I don’t want to speculate on the outcome. The Grand Jury exists for a reason after all.
Even were infractions to be confirmed the political motivations of ICM and Mayor are pretty naked. I wonder who has the right to rifle through the ICM’s email and when we may see that happen?
Comment by M.I. — July 7, 2010 @ 10:30 am
A political hatchet job of the first order. The City Manager’s office appears to have acquired all the trappings of the Nixon White House.
Interesting how this comes after the Mayor’s dismal performance in the race for Board of Supervisors, after her failed attempt at “campaign reform” and before the November election. Is this an attempt by the City Manager to clear a seat for the Mayor on the council?
Funny how Tam’s doing what she thought was right for her constituents and working people lands her in hot water with the DA but laying people off, contracting out, cutting benefits and pensions is seen as “prudent.”
Seems to me it’s time for the City Manager to start doing her job instead of initiating politically motivated actions against council members with whom she disagrees. On the other hand she could do what she’s done at all the other towns she’s managed: move on.
Comment by Mike Henneberry — July 7, 2010 @ 11:13 am
I just have to point out the irony of the fact that the law firm hired by the City Manager to conduct the investigation is located near Grass Valley. Like with all other city business, it appears that “the City and City Manager” who asked for the investigation decided that there is no one local who could have competently conducted this investigation.
Comment by And stay off my lawn! — July 7, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Can’t wait for Bev Jo to run for council … and lose by a 2-1 margin (again). Speaking of which, I still see campaign signs from her June election on the sidewalks. Would she be so kind enough to remove them now that the elections are long gone and she lost in almost every precinct?
Comment by alameda — July 7, 2010 @ 11:35 am
#9
“I wonder who has the right to rifle through the ICM’s email and when we may see that happen?”
I believe you do. http://www.thefirstamendment.org/publicrecordsact.pdf
Comment by Richard Bangert — July 7, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
13.
email if it fits this definition:
“Records” include all communications related to
public business “regardless of physical form or
characteristics, including any writing, picture,
sound, or symbol, whether paper,…, magnetic or
other media.” (§ 6252(e)) Electronic records are
included, but software may be ex
Comment by jayare — July 7, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Lena Tam has been an advocate of the Brown Act and open government for decades, and was apparently protected under at least sections e2) and e3) of the Brown Act cited above by Mike McMahon.
Of course, I do not see the ICM or BevJo pushing for more public disclosure of what may have been inappropriately “closed” Council sessions, or of the ICM’s apparent conflicts of interest (already detailed here ad nauseum).
Remember when Doug deHaan used to complain bitterly about all the closed session discussions he could not talk about? maybe we should have listened more closely to what he had to say at the time.
Of course, he was not investigated by the current ICM for Brown Act violations, either. (Perhaps because it was pre-Gallant and because he was on the “right” side of the Council votes?)
This *looks* like a clear case of someone (or some persons) going after a whistleblower in order to hide her/their own misdeeds. I wish the facts and events were not pointing that way, but they seem to be…
Comment by Jon Spangler — July 7, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
Lauren, in case you haven’t seen it by now, here is the publicly released copy of the two letters to the District Attorney, not the press release:
As far as I can tell the 100 pages of back up material are not available on the internet yet.
Since, you, Michelle and JKW are on the list of people who received documents which Councilwoman Tam was legally not allowed to disclose, I urge you to be smart and stop talking and writing about this for your own protection.
Since earlier this morning, I have been hearing that it is possible to be criminally prosecuted for stealing private information and for receiving it and using it.
You, obviously, are alleged to be a recipient. The smartest move, to protect yourself, is silence because everything you say and write can and might be used against you in a court of law.
Comment by Incredulous — July 7, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Richard ,
Good one, but that should read, “we do”. I’m not the best candidate for initiating such a process, for the time being I have my hands full with my own legal BS.
Comment by M.I. — July 7, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and the ICM is doing all she can to guarantee her own job security. The rest of us can go to hell, for all she cares.
Comment by charlie — July 7, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
A shameless plug
Lena’s kick off for her run for the city council is being held Saturday the 10th from 2 to 4 PM at 1004 Paru. What better way to show Lena that we stand with her.
Comment by barbara kahn — July 7, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
The city clerk has copies of the letters and emails that are being discussed here.
If you call the city clerk at 510 747-4800, she’ll print a copy for you.
It’s about 400 pages, so call ahead of time, and she’ll print them out for you.
Then sit quietly for an hour or so and read.
Comment by RM — July 7, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
“Desperate times call for desperate measure and ICM is doing all she can to guarantee her own job security. The rest of us can go to hell, for all she cares. ”
Wow, I’m not sure how exposing a criminal or alleged criminal would illicit that response.
The council member might have broken the law; even if in the end she is proven innocent the ICM did the right thing.
Looks like somebody in City Hall was vigilant enough to take noticed then took responsibility and reported it. Not sure if that constitutes “looking out for the rest of us” but in my book, that’s the way the job should be done.
The evidence looks bad; I for one am glad somebody did the right thing and got the District Attorney involved. After all that’s what due process is all about, right?
AlamedaDude
Comment by AlamedaDude — July 7, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
AlamedaDude,
If the ICM did it only to tarnish the name of the Candidate most likely to win her 2nd term and the candidate has asked very good questions about the unethical practices of the ICM there is total reason for this.
Just because the ICM says she did it and took aggressive action doesn’t make it fact. Please note, Sarah Palin claims lots of things are fact that at most only hold up in La-La land.
The DA is a very smart woman. Let’s let her chime in before you make judgements of law.
Comment by member of a real family — July 7, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
I hope the Grand Jury decides to do a review of emails from all council members and the mayor.
Comment by notadave — July 7, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
23 … and the ICM.
Comment by alameda — July 7, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
Funny this interest in Lean Tam when school board meber Trish Spencer was so cozy with the Pacific Justice League in their lawsuit against the Alameda School District that she escorted them to court. Talk about a red flag for possible violation of one’s fiduciary duties to the School District as a sitting Trustee. But, as far as I can tell, no investigation at all.
We’ll see how this pans out, but over the last couple of years, I have agreed with Lena Tam far more than other members of the council. Further, the ICM’s penchant for spending Alameda money on her friends in a city elsewhere in this state is very concerning to me, particularly the no-bid work and things as frivilous as “branding.” The fees paid to this “branding” outfit were a complete waste of money. When do we investgate inappropriate give aways of hard earned tax payer money.
Comment by John — July 7, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
why does the INTERIM city manager have such power? Isn’t she supposed to be a caretaker until a real one is hired?
Comment by E — July 7, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
The allegations are serious and disturbing. I think that it would be a good idea for those involved to seek legal advice. The full gravity of the situation may not yet have struck home, but it will in the coming days. I would urge that we not conduct a blog trial, but that we let the legal process take its course.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 7, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
#27. I agree, this a serious matter and disturbing on many levels. I also hope the DA widens any investigation to include the rest of the council, the mayor, the ICM, and the city attorney so that we can get a clear look at how the city is managed and governed. I’m tired of all the rumors; let’s get everything settled at once.
Comment by Linda Hudson — July 7, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Not bad advice ANT, but to be clear. Only Lena is accused of wrongdoing. The City is on a witch hunt.
I’d encourage everyone to read the documents (I’m sure they’ll be posted soon) and see for yourself what these “allegations” are.
Comment by John Knox White — July 7, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
Good advice for anyone in CYA mode indeed, John.
Comment by Gillico — July 7, 2010 @ 9:13 pm