The attention on both Alameda Point and, what I guess is now being called “Tamgate” has pushed Parade-Gate into the sidelines, but it’s still an interesting issue in light of the fact that no one wants to take responsibility for who asked for the legal opinion to be issued by the City Attorney. Councilmember Marie Gilmore has asked that the issue of the parade and contributions from the City to the parade be agendized so that the City Council can talk about the…um…conflicts that arose for this last 4th of July Parade.
I posted this in the comments section a while back, but for those that don’t read the comments after a certain number of posts would have missed the link to the KPIX coverage of Parade-Gate.
According to the piece, Mayor Beverly Johnson told the reporter this:
The Parade Committee asked for an opinion from the City Attorney and the City Attorney’s opinion was that it was certainly appropriate to not allow candidates campaigning in the parade. And I agree with that because we want to keep it a community event, not a campaigning event.
Which is in stark contrast to Councilmember Marie Gilmore’s position on the issue — as well as the two average Alamedans interviewed for the piece. Including one woman who said,
I would be spurred to do something like obviously cover up the word so it was obvious what it was covering up and kind of thumb my nose at it.
The report ended by opining that was “pretty much” what Rob Bonta did. However, I personally, would have probably not made it so artistic as Rob Bonta did. I wish he had made it more obvious that his entry was censored by placing the standard black bars that are generally used to cover up naughty bits on nude bodies to protect our delicate sensibilities.
But back to the Mayor’s statement, I found it interesting in that it differed from what Michele Ellson reported around the topic. She indicated that when she talked to the City Attorney,
…City Attorney Teresa Highsmith, at the behest of an unnamed City Council member, opined that the parade committee could bar participants from offering campaign slogans as part of their parade act.
Dan Wood also confirmed with the Parade Committee chair that they did not ask for the opinion to be issued either.
Ironically, Dan Wood did some digging in news archives and uncovered this quote by the City Attorney that stands in stark contrast to the legal opinion she issued for this parade. In 2003 when an El Cerrito anti-gay group wanted to walk in the 4th of July Parade, she said:
In the Contra Costa Times, Teresa Highsmith is quoted as saying “A group may be banned only if its message advocates violence or constitutes a hate crime.”
Now, apparently, anything goes!
Also someone asked about the City employees who sit on the Parade Committee, according to the City Attorney’s legal opinion allowing the Parade Committee to censor entries, those City employees:
City employees who staff the Parade Committee do so as a component of their employment with the City, and are therefore compensated while transacting Parade Committee business.
To add insult to injury, not only are the permits and fees waived, but:
All City services required to support the needs of the Parade, including Police, Public Works Maintenance, Parks and Recreation, and AMP services, as well as incidental services, are waived.
And on top of all those waived fees, the City “donated” $10,000 to the Parade Committee in order to “save” the Parade according to the City Manager’s office.
Personally, I am hoping that someone on the City Council will directly request that the City Attorney disclose who asked for the legal opinion to be issued. Apparently right now everyone appears to be in “not me” mode and the City Attorney — in an email responding to my request for documentation as to why the City Attorney’s office, if the Mayor is to be believed, issued a legal opinion for a non-City department — said:
The City Attorney does not issue opinions to the public, including a non-City department.
C’mon – it was the Mayor. And I hope this legal “opinion” is not characteristic of Highsmith’s other legal advice…
“you look fantastic in that splendid new outfit, my King.”
I wish people would just fess up and things wouldn’t be that controversial but I guess that doesn’t characterize this era in Alameda politics.
Comment by Hot R — July 29, 2010 @ 9:04 am
I have to say I feel a bit too young to be living in such a ‘gated’ community.
Comment by Alana Dill — July 29, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
It does seem that Mayor Johnson is telling a story that does not match up with other reputable sources. Why is this, and when will she enlighten us as to the disparities in this story–or, rather, this collection of mis-matching stories?
I would certainly prefer to hear a “unifying” explanation that clears up the apparent misrepresentation of reality that have been attributed to her.
Where (and what) are the truth(s) here?
Comment by Jon Spangler — July 31, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
The odd thing about this controversy is that the incumbents always lead the parade. Those politicians are already given visibility: their name and job title are posted on the sides of their vehicles.
Comment by OmbudsBen — July 31, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
Oh a side note re: Ms. Johnson, when is her campaign sign on Doolittle going to be taken down? Certainly she’s driven by it given it’s the only southern approach to enter her city………..?????
Comment by Terry — August 1, 2010 @ 7:37 am