As mentioned by John Knox White over at In Alameda it appears that on the agenda for the entire month of December for the City Council will be Special Meetings if the December 1st meeting is any indication of what the pattern will be.
For those not up to date on the Brown Act terminology, a Special Meeting is a meeting that is generally called beyond regularly scheduled meetings. The City Council generally meets on the first and third Tuesday of each month, but this month is special because the second regularly scheduled meeting (the third Tuesday this month is December 21st, which is notable because that is the first meeting that the new City Council will be seated).
So this Wednesday, December 1st meeting the City Council there are only three things on the agenda.
- Approve a sublease for a restaurant for the old Robek’s Juice storefront on Park Street.
- Bring back Doug deHaan’s Council Referral for the Mif course (and here)
- Mayor’s nominations for Boards and Commissions.
While, I would love to see the Council finally take action on the Mif Albright issue, I find it puzzling as to why any of these items are so pressing that they couldn’t wait the four business days for the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Tuesday, December 7th. Or if there were pressing, why they weren’t scheduled earlier, like at any previous City Council meetings from October 19 when the Mif Albright Referral was first placed on the agenda until this “Special” meeting that was called.
Of course even more puzzling is the sudden rush to fill those board and commission seats that have been vacant for months on end. Most notably, the Transportation Commission which has been without a quorum for a really long time and had most of its meetings cancelled in 2009 has suddenly become a priority for Mayor Beverly Johnson now that she is only one regularly scheduled City Council meeting away from being just a City Councilmember and no longer Mayor. The significance is that the appointments have to be done in two meetings: one to nominate and the second to have the full Council accept the nominations. If this “Special” meeting were not so conveniently scheduled there will not have been enough time for Mayor Johnson to fill these slots with her own choices instead of leaving the option to incoming Mayor Marie Gilmore.
And then there is the whole issue that JKW covered which discusses the rush to seat a new Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) member now that Frank Matarrese will be exiting the City Council/ARRA. Even though the next RAB meeting isn’t scheduled until January 5, it seems premature to allow an outgoing member to vote on who will take his place without allowing the new guy a chance to throw his hat in the ring as the RAB representative. Now it’s quite possible that Rob Bonta will have enough on his plate that he wouldn’t want to sit as the RAB representative, but of course we wouldn’t know for sure since everything is being rushed last minute to take advantage of a perceived majority on the Council to vote one way or the other.
As suggested by JKW, if timing is an issue, then use the “Special Meeting” wand to call a meeting before or after the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Tuesday the 21st to appoint someone to the RAB. At least it would be the new City Council making a decision moving forward. And, as JKW pointed out, Rob Bonta will be the next Vice Mayor (the top vote getter), so his voice kinda counts for something.
That would be the same Rob Bonta who sat on the Hospital Board. The Hospital Board that had to cancel a 11/1 meeting because they had violated the Brown Act notice requirements. Then that same Hospital Board which put a contract extension for the CEO with 18 months severance pay for the agenda of the Special Meeting on 11/8 . I’m not sure if the contract extension was on the original agenda, but I don’t think Rob Bonta has anything to complain about when it comes to lame duck sessions.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — November 30, 2010 @ 6:37 am
If Johnson didn’t appoint anybody before she vacated the mayor’s chair, who would y’all have to complain about once the dream team is seated? You and John should be jumping for joy. After all, you aren’t likely to be jumping on every perceived misstep that Marie, Lena, and Rob might make for a while. Everybody needs a honeymoon, especially when the divorce is always so messy.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 30, 2010 @ 7:57 am
#2: Denise,
Mayor Johnson failed to fulfill the duties of her office by letting several boards and commissions languish for months – if not years – on end without even a quorum. BevJo’s gross neglect of her duty to fill vacancies is unprecedented in recent memory and deserves every bit of criticism that many of us have been offering up for a year or more.
Her behavior would still be unconscionable no matter who was in the mayor’s chair. And you may be sure that those of us who worked hard to elect Gilmore, Bonta, and Tam will continue to let them know after December 21 if and when they fall short of expectations or if we disagree with their actions.
I voted for Gilmore, Bonta, and Tam because they were the smartest and best-qualified candidates, not because they are clones or puppets. I have been disagreeing with Marie Gilmore and Lena Tam since they were elected to the City Council and they both know what to expect. So does newcomer Rob Bonta.
The difference will be that these three are and will be more accessible to voters and more transparent in their actions and procedures. Alameda will benefit from the sunshine and fresh air that will result.
You certainly do not have to take my word for it – just watch what they actually do after December 21.
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 30, 2010 @ 10:57 am
I am not keeping up with board appointments other than to note Johnson has methodically neglected making some of them for months. I could chalk it up to politics for her to make appointments at the last minute and not leave it to Marie if the positions hadn’t been neglected until now. Since she will continue to serve on the council it’s not very collegial of her to pull this. The combination of neglecting to act and then doing it now is overtly political. Many of us who are antagonized by her actions actually supported her previous run for office.
Since I’ve lived here I’m not aware of council doing anything but rubber stamping the mayor’s nominations, but if Frank were to go along with Marie and Lena they could block them. Frank did block Marie’s appointment to council to replace Al De Witt and was very stubborn about giving up on Marilyn Ashcraft. Johnson broke ranks with him to approve Marie.
Comment by M.I. — November 30, 2010 @ 11:04 am
In the same post, no less:
“I voted for Gilmore, Bonta, and Tam because they were the smartest and best-qualified candidates…”
“I have been disagreeing with Marie Gilmore and Lena Tam since they were elected to the City Council..”
Now that’s a ringing endorsement…or something.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 30, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
Re: #1 – If Mr. Gorelick would have read the agendas for the canceled meeting and the subsequent meeting he would easily see that they were the EXACT same agenda. The second meeting was a rescheduling of the original meeting so that there would be strict compiance with the Brown Act. Rather than implying nefarious intent he should be glad that the board complied with the letter and intent of the act, giving him and other members of the public ample notice of the meeting and, thus, a chance to attend and weigh in on matters.
Comment by david burton — November 30, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
I sort of feel like the whole City Council has become some strange group of people I used to know but something has happened. I have to believe it’s the presence of the ICM. I was going to vote for both Frank and Bev but they were the puppets. It’s as if everything they’ve done the past few months have been scripted by the City Attorney and ICM. If Bev ever has a chance of winning my loyalty back, she needs to break the psychic hold the ICM has over her. The same with Frank. I used to adore him and thought he was fair, level-headed and your basic nice guy. During the election, I found him to be a lemming to Bev and the City Administration. It was very sad and disappointing to watch. I hope to see the bad feelings of this past election be shaken off by my old time favorite candidates.
Comment by R.U. Amuckraker — November 30, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
Mr. Burton,
I think you missed my point entirely.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — November 30, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
Mr. Gorelick,
I think there are multiple points in your original post as you, as the author, are no doubt aware. My reply is entirely accurate on the point it addressed.
The rescheduled meeting was just that – the original meeting was rescheduled to the later date so that the advanced noticing requirements of the Brown Act were properly followed. No additional agenda items were “snuck into” the agenda to subvert processes. If you believe otherwise please provide facts and not innuendo.
The issue of the CEO’s contract renewal was an original agenda item for a regularly scheduled meeting as can be plainly determined by examining the agendas. Lauren’s post is about special meetings being scheduled to conduct additional business prior to a change in the composition of the council and the office of mayor. No such special meeting was scheduled in the case of the hospital board; they were merely conducting their regular business as part of their normal duties.
I wish you the best in your new position as a board member.
Comment by david burton — November 30, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
David, you should have mentioned you were Jordan’s husband. I certainly didn’t know and it would have put your umbrage in context. (It always surprises me how small a town Alameda is.)
Comment by elliott.gorelick — December 14, 2010 @ 2:17 pm