Tonight, the newly constituted City Council is meeting in a specially called meeting to specifically address three closed session items. What is nice about this agenda is that it is a lot more explicit about what is going to be discussed in the closed session.
So this is the agenda:
3-A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Gov. Code Section 54957(b))
Title: City Clerk3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.9 (b)
Number of cases: One3-C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE (Gov. Code Section 54957 (b))
It’s clear what the first item and given the fact that there has been on previous agendas performance evaluations scheduled for the City Clerk, City Manager, and City Attorney what I am inferring from this being on the agenda, yet again, is that the performance evaluations simply were not done previously.
Item 3-B is a bit more nebulous, so I’m going to jump to 3-C which is a bit easier to sort out. A review of Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s contract (oh and by the way, that is how her name is spelled: “Ann Marie Gallant” not Anne Marie or Ann-Marie or Anne-Marie) reveals that if her contract is not explicitly “not renewed” 90 days in advance of the end of the contract term then her contract automatically renews for another 90 day period. Given that her contract term ends March 31, 2011, unless the City Council wanted to auto-renew their contract with Ann Marie Gallant until the end of June 2011, the decision to give notice needs to be made, like, now.
My guess is that item 3-C will be a discussion of the term of Ann Marie Gallant’s contract and whether or not to give her notice of non renewal in order to avoid the automatic 90 day renewal which is triggered because the City Council has yet to begin a formal search process for a permanent City Manager.
And since it appears that this agenda is heavily skewed toward personnel issues, item 3-B could involve our very own City Attorney Terri Highsmith. Either she is suing the City or the City is suing her — more likely she is suing the City or threatening to sue the City which might be why she has yet to do anything regarding her employment status. And if you read through Terri Highsmith’s employment contract with the City, it’s a pretty sweet deal. Essentially regardless of how she leaves the City, unless she resigns on her own or “with cause” (cause is, of course, if she is caught doing drugs, has too many unexcused absences, or is convicted of a felony) she is going to walk away from the City with at least six months of salary and benefits as severance (up to nine months if she sticks around until she hits three years of full work as Alameda’s City Attorney).
This closed session might end up being a marathon one, hopefully there will be a nice report out at the end of the night.
City Clerk Lara Weisiger is a superb public servant and administrator. Her office staff is always available to provide information and answer questions, and Weisiger has been a consistent advocate of transparency and public information.
Her evaluation will be the bright spot on the City Council’s agenda, as it should be. I hope she gets a raise!
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 28, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Wow, even the Bell CM didn’t sue his City. Is it possible that she would accept another job without notifying anyone in the City and then turn around and sue the City to extract a severance? A sad episode for our City if it happens. You cannot defend what is not defnesible. I did predict yesterday on the Barstow post that it will happen though and that she does now have counsel to represent her. Maybe this is the blueprint to leave that Gallant gave to her? I hope Lauren is able to keep the Barstow papers and Council updated on these matters.
Comment by DRM — December 28, 2010 @ 11:10 am
2. “I hope Lauren is able to keep the Barstow papers and Council updated on these matters.”
Why?
Comment by Jack Richard — December 28, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
I’d like to echo Jon’s comment about Lara Weisiger. She is among a group of unheralded and fabulous public employees!
Comment by Richard Hausman — December 28, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
#3, to do well unto others. Why should another City have to deal with that kind of nonsense?
Comment by DRM — December 28, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
“The reality, however, is that there is a high likelihood that the City of Alameda will be screwed in the SunCal litigation, because Highsmith is no longer going to be a friendly and cooperative witness”.
The above was written by BigAl, in which you responded:
“this turn of events is the best thing to happen to the City since Rosenblum’s set up camp”.
What do you mean by this, and what did she do to you that would make you wish this on our city?
Comment by Karen Bey — December 28, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
So you’re willing to take down the whole city so you can get revenge?
I would really like to know what did she do — and who are you? Do you even live in Alameda?
Comment by Karen Bey — December 28, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
give her the boot!
Comment by E — December 28, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
Karen good questions, but they the four or five who frequent the blog only respond to each other. The four or five Stooges on this blog are not here to debate, exchange ideas, foster a community, but to draw attention to themselves, promote their own skewed views and their favorite activity of all; to denigrate anything or anybody who does not agree with them.
Comment by AlamedaDude — December 28, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
And by the way, I don’t agree that the number #3 item on the agenda is about Ann Marie Gallant – not sure how this rumor got started.
Comment by Karen Bey — December 28, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
I’m sure Lena will keep the ‘mutual admiration society’ up to date.
Comment by frank — December 28, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
#11. Excuse me? I keep up to date by either going to Council meetings or watching them on TV or on the feed. So do most of my friends. Amazing what one can learn if one engages in the civic life of the community. Lots of people get their information that way!
Comment by Kate Quick — December 28, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
Both the City Attorney and Interim City Manager were placed on administrative leave this evening.
The council will be starting a competitive search for a City Manager.
Comment by John Knox White — December 28, 2010 @ 11:50 pm
What a stunning “twin” decision.
I wish Donna Mooney and Lisa Goldman well – they will have their hands full and then some….
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 29, 2010 @ 12:54 am
I don’t know the order of actions last nit vut I assume the vote not to renew the contract was done first. Once that decision was made one would have to expect to be put on administrative leave. It wouldn’t be fair to Anne Marie or the city to expect her to perform effectively as a lame duck. I know there will be lots of emotional responses to this action, but really, it is just good business practice.
Comment by Notadave — December 29, 2010 @ 7:00 am
13. Finally … good riddance to bad rubbish!
Comment by alameda — December 29, 2010 @ 7:18 am
Yeah, more great news!
Comment by DRM — December 29, 2010 @ 7:53 am
So we know that Highsmith is now entitled to a minimum of 9 months pay and 6 months of benefits from the date of termination (any idea if the official termination date is last night or some other date?) The ICM receives how much while on admin leave? Also, what person is going to negotiate a contract with Alameda with less than generous termination and severance clauses. I think $300,000 in cost (and maybe as much as $500,000) is a reasonable number to assign to last night’s actions.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — December 29, 2010 @ 8:34 am
Well thats what happens when as a city employee you get involved in the politics of the city council members. The ICM and city attorney knew full well what they were doing and what they were risking when they took part in the political side of this city.
A word to the next city manager and attorney. STAY OUT OF POLITICS. JUST WORRY ABOUT YOUR JOB.
Comment by John piziali — December 29, 2010 @ 8:59 am
I know that I would have been outraged and frustrated with respect to my ability to do my job if it appeared to me that one of my superiors was communicating with a potential legal adversary in a way that I felt made it difficult, if not impossible, to do my job whether that meant having to oppose that organization in court in the future(SunCal) or across the bargaining table (firefighters).
I am not endorsing the decision to spend 100,000 on an investigation, but I am saying it is wrong to think that the jobs of city attorney and city manager can be so clearly delineated between politics and job.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — December 29, 2010 @ 9:16 am
Elliott, I have spoken to more than one city or school adminestrator,not from Alameda and they have all said the same thing.
When you are in that position you must be A-political, that means you keep your political opinion to yourself. Your job is to implement what the politicians want you to. not side with one or another faction.
I’ve said this before, they did not have to hire an attorney first, they should have gone to the fair political practice commission first. Then after a ruling from that body you take the next step if any.
Comment by John piziali — December 29, 2010 @ 11:53 am
In the days since Barstow revelation I haven’t noticed anybody mentioning ICM at all. I don’t recall anybody directing any inquiry as to her possible knowledge of Highsmith’s plans. Was there an official “no comment”?
Personally, considering their previous relationship regarding Lena Tam investigation I can’t imagine Highsmith taking the Barstow gig without conferring with ICM, but how would any of us know? As much as these folks leaving has been anticipated, the sequence of events and legality isn’t obvious.
Termination and severance may be inevitable but in the interim I don’t understand how paid administrative leave is a breach of contract automatically triggering severance as with outright termination without cause, etc.. People may be able to guess outcomes, but it seems premature to make conclusions about what is actually transpiring regarding those outcomes.
Comment by M.I. — December 29, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
9. it may seem ridiculous for somebody of my nature to quote the pure hearted Julia Butterfly, but your remark makes me think of her quote “when you point a finger at somebody there are three more pointed back at you”.
Comment by M.I. — December 29, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
M.I. I think clause 23 in her contract covers the reason this can be considered termination (at Highsmith’s discretion). Since she didn’t abuse drugs or alcohol, fail to show up to work, or get convicted, the 6 + 3 month severance is in effect for Highsmith if she chooses.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — December 29, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
john, from the FPPC website:
“The FPPC does not provide guidance on laws other than the Political Reform Act (e.g. the Elections Code, the Brown Act, Federal or local laws.).”
Comment by elliott.gorelick — December 29, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
@21
“When you are in that position you must be A-political, that means you keep your political opinion to yourself. Your job is to implement what the politicians want you to. not side with one or another faction.”
The reality is that as to SunCal, the ICM and City Attorney were advising the City Council as to business decisions involving nearly insolvent companies, not mere political decisions. Like them or not, Gallant and Highsmith worked to save Alameda from being stuck in a contract with an assetless shell owned by a parent company which (1) has not paid judgments against it ($9+M), (2) is losing major projects to foreclosure and involuntary bankruptcy left and right, (3) had been abandoned by two money partners (still solvent Lehman entities and D.E. Shaw), and (4) is mired in financial litigation, all of which would lead to the parent company being unable to contribute capital to develop Alameda Point. When the dust of political animosities settle, Alamedans will be thanking the Council members who voted 4-0, Gallant and Highsmith, for making the only rational business decision on SunCal. Now, it looks like it will be up to Rob Bonta, a Yale Law grad who litigates in Federal Court, to lead the Council in closed session decision making necessary to defeat SCC Alameda Point and its owner in their unmeritorious Federal court case. Let’s hope Bonta is up to the challenge.
“I’ve said this before, they did not have to hire an attorney first, they should have gone to the fair political practice commission first. Then after a ruling from that body you take the next step if any.”
The problem was the ongoing leaking of attorney-client communications. Anyone with any experience in dealing with the Fair Political Practices Commission knows that they are very timid and slow. Their decisions are substantively useless. Going to the FPPC is not a useful remedy to immediately stop leaking of attorney-client privileged communications. Discovery in the Federal court case being prosecuted by SCC Alameda Point will show whether the leaking has continued after last summer’s fracas. Hopefully Ms. Tam (not a lawyer) now understands her fiduciary duty to the City of Alameda, and will faithfully discharge it.
Comment by BigAl — December 29, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Sorry but I just couldn’t find decent video of Lowell George doing it.
Comment by Jack B. — December 29, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Elliott, I thought that this was in part a supposed Brown Act violation, which you state above would be covered by the FPPC.
As I have said, check with them first then take the next step.
Comment by John piziali — December 29, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
John, the parenthetical refers to things the FPPC does not cover unless I am reading it wrong.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — December 29, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
BigAl and Elliott, thanks for the information on the FPPC.
Comment by John piziali — December 29, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
Boy, Gallant’s history of being thrown out every couple of years with the bathwater continues. I guess school teachers do not make good CMs.
Comment by DRM — December 29, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Our 3 brave councilmembers have worked deftly to avoid this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bell-origins-20101228,0,5827080,full.story
Don’t laugh. We were going that path before this ouster.
Comment by DRM — December 29, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
In Alameda are elections won with a few hundred votes? Do only 5 people show at council meetings? Are there are no citizens scrutinizing the city’s finances?
Huh?
Comment by dave — December 29, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
I thought Alameda had an elected City Auditor and City Treasurer. Aren’t they suppose to scrutinize the City finances?
Comment by Dennis V. — December 29, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
post 34. our city auditor and city tresurer have done that very well. If you go to the city web site you will find a full report on our city fiances. Kevin Kennedy has done a very good presentation on the state of our city.
Comment by John piziali — December 29, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
re 32
Brave? Deftly?
Ah-ha-ha. Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — December 29, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
23 ahh, nothing like hyperbole on steroids. thank god for bell the bellweather
Comment by Jack Richard — December 29, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
36, no Mr. Gillitt, but we are probably not alike much even though we are both merchants. I have never assaulted an elderly woman (nor have I even felt like doing that). We differ.
Comment by DRM — December 29, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
DRM
I can only assume by your rhetoric you’re the new replacement hired by SunCal/Argent now that Scoop Mitchell’s gone to Salinas. I must profess to liking how you stick to the party script about the old lady abuse, but, honestly, it’s really as tired as your assertion that it’s up to Lauren Do to save Barstow from the evils of Terri Highsmith.
So, do you have a name? What kind of merchant are you besides one of bullshit?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — December 29, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
@39
Adam, if he is a new shill for SunCal/Argent I hope he’s been paid cash up front. The lawyer for Gray1 CPB, LLC, that creditor of SCC Acquisitions, Inc. and Bruce Elieff claims he has collected virtually nothing of the $10 Million judgment against them (including attorneys fees), because all of SCC’s and Elieff’s vaunted millions have been hidden. SCC and Elieff have now been sued for another $144 Million by a bankruptcy trustee. As a result, were they to show up in Alameda and claim to the new City Council that they are suddenly flush with cash to develop Alameda Point, word would ricochet down to the creditors down in Orange County that SCC and Elieff were claiming to have cash. That in turn would get them in major league hot water with the $10M unpaid creditor as well as the bankruptcy trustee who is suing them. The problem with being “too cute” about hiding cash in 150+ LLCs, like the judge in the Gray1 case ruled SCC and Elieff had done, is that when the cash reappears it disappears.
Whether the current Council members are intelligent enough to see THROUGH Elieff and SCC’s re-emerging as an economically viable developer of Alameda Point will be interesting to watch.
Let’s hope that if there is a time all presentations by SCC and Elieff will have to be out in the open, in compliance with the Brown Act, and not in closed session. I was not thrilled with the City Attorney’s decision on that issue. If the Council insists on hearing an economic presentation from SunCal aka Argent aka SCC aka Elieff in closed session, the attorneys for the $10 Million creditor and the bankruptcy trustee will be able to drag the Council members and City staff into depositions to learn what b,s. the developer had peddled on its financial where-with-all. We did that once to the Oceanside City Council around 1993, and it was loads of fun.
Comment by BigAl — December 29, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
#40: BigAl — thanks so much for this excellent analysis. It has certainly made my day. It raises a number of questions too, of course. I am wondering how SunCal, et al. would line up financial backers or “qualify” (the correct word?) for performance bonds. They’re essentially deadbeats with a credit score of “0″ so who would do business with them?
I am concerned also that the would-be wheeler-dealers on the Council and elsewhere in the community have no clue what they’d be getting themselves into. The folks who are blindly pro-SunCal (and blindly self-serving) have never been willing to take a real look at SunCal. They don’t recognize that the minute they start dealing w/ SunCal, they’re already in over their heads, now even more so.
I am hoping that they don’t drag the rest of us in with them.
Comment by dlm — December 30, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
I don’t think that you can find a “blindly SunCal” person in Alameda any more.
Comment by John piziali — December 30, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
Not a one who will use their real name, John. But there are plenty of anonymous ones among the contributors to this site.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — December 30, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
Adam, I think the anonymity thing actually cuts more (negatively) in the other direction. Putting that aside, what constitutes blind fealty to SunCal, anybody who does not find a SunCal conspiracy under every rock?
Comment by M.I. — December 30, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Um, who was the last person to suggest Alameda was on the road to Bell?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — December 30, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54212193@N05/5128963251/in/set-72157625283037124/
Comment by Adam Gillitt — December 30, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
#44: MI — the minute you drag in the tired old “conspiracy fears” argument, you’re signaling an unwillingness to have an honest discussion, by positing this false dichotomy.
Lena Tam remained a staunch (shall we call it) supporter of SunCal before the election and certainly after as well, so much so that she leaked confidential information to them. It wouldn’t be accurate to call her a blind supporter of SunCal, tho, so much as blindly self-interested. That’s her motivation, and this is my objective assessment, not an attack.
I have no doubt that we could start hearing various noises about “the city’s financial exposure” from the SunCal litigation, or the supposed “$700 million” needed for new infrastruction at AP. We’ll see sincere expressions of concern for the city’s best interests, amid the usual welter of bogus arguments that for some strange reason can never be honestly addressed.
Isn’t this what usually happens, when SunCal is involved? See, eg., the “transparent” 300 pg. initiative. It’s just business as usual and anyone who is truly unable to recognize this is not being very bright.
Comment by dlm — December 30, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
#47
“honest discussion…objective opinion…”
Yeah, sure, you betcha. Especially when anyone who disagrees with you “is not being very bright.”
Nah, nah, nah, nah,
Nah, nah, nah, nah,
Hey, hey, dim, you lost.
ROFL
Comment by Linda Hudson — December 30, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Darcy,
in a sincere interest of an honest discussion. Could you please provide what “confidential information” Lena Tam leaked? All the documents that she shared with SunCal are public, so could you point to them?
Comment by John Knox White — December 30, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
Boy, you guys must have quite the phone tree. I always wonder what weird motivation lies behind all this — honestly and objectively, I might add. Is this your real opinion or is it just meant to be bait?
You folks operate with such ill will, you never understand where I’m coming from. I think the whole ad hominem thing is a useless and often wilfull distraction — I’m interested in honestly understanding what’s really going on here, strange as that may sound.
It brings to mind an old Dick Cavett line about “explaining alternate side of the street parking to a cranberry”. That’s how I feel.
(And John, quit trying to intimidate people, it’s crude.)
Comment by dlm — December 30, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
Or are you trying to bump up the clicks on Lauren’s site, by stirring up an argument?
Any thoughts from the audience at large would be appreciated.
Comment by dlm — December 30, 2010 @ 2:32 pm
Here’s a discussion starter, Darcy:
Why does John White deserve the extra name? Does it make him feel extra special, like John Wayne Gacy?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — December 30, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
DLM…pay no attention to the likes of Linda…she is what she is but please keep posting because I find your information very informative. You do your homework and I find that refreshing in this world of blogs.
Comment by J.E.A. — December 30, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
50. you admonish me for making a conspiracy reference, so what is the phone tree crack about? “You folks operate with such ill will”, you talking about Adam Gillitt or what?
I’m not unwilling to have an honest discussion, I’m just getting worn down. If you go to JKW post on SFgate about the closed door session, there are a bunch of anonymous piranhas having a feeding frenzy over how quickly John had the scoop, as in more conspiracy. There is no there there.
If you want to have an honest discussion about whether, or to what to degree, the rotting infrastructure at the Point is a liability, I’m a listener. I’m also very interested to retrace the list of previous applicants for long term leases dating back to 2001 when Doug de Haan says there were a bunch turned away, because I’m trying to get a handle on what is realistic in terms of interim lease income, which I think has been consistently over stated by anti-SunCal people who really have no empirical knowledge to back their claims. I’m not saying that I know with certainty about infrastructure or the leases options. I just think people talk a lot of shit which is what wears me down.
Comment by M.I. — December 30, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
[...] meant to include this sharp analysis from commenter BigAl at Blogging Bayport as to why the path to SunCal’s return has become even more fraught with peril: The lawyer for [...]
Pingback by City Fires Gallant | The Alameda Post — December 30, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
Looks like the idiots (Adam and the rest of the conspiracy theorists) just can’t get over the fact that elections have consequences and your slate lost TWICE. So quit peddling your wacky theories and try to get out a little more in the new year.
Hey Adam, how’s the senior bullying coming along? And looks like Alameda Postal is going nowhere … woo!!! And quit posting on sfgate under multiple names only so you can reference them in your blog.
What a pathetic loser.
Comment by Alex L — December 30, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
#53: JEA — thanks! Here’s another argument we’ll be hearing — that the city’s AP workshops “prove” that the public wants housing, when in fact the workshops had a built-in bias in favor of housing, which (fortunately) many people commented on at the time.
#54: MI — this is what I get worn out with: the non-stop attempts here and elsewhere to misrepresent (“spin”) every issue relating to SunCal, without regard to the city’s best interests. It doesn’t help us to enter into agreements with a sleazebag, bankrupt developer, and that’s the undeniable reality.
I don’t know anything about the potential long-term lease income, either — or anything about leases apart from what’s in the city’s financial reports. I would say tho that this issue, again, is potentially a false dichotomy, tho note that I’m not attributing that motive to you.
Even if potential lease income is in fact overestimated, that doesn’t make a deal with SunCal a better option.
Comment by dlm — December 30, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
#50: So, dlm, show us the proof that any of the documents shared by lena Tam with anyone were, in fact, confidential.
(HINT: The docs she shared with firefighters and with SunCal were public documents and had come from public sources prior to their being included in City Council meeting packets. Stamping previously public-records documents like that “confidential” cannot legally make them “secret.”)
57: Since when is anyone suggesting any sort of relationship with SunCal? I’m certainly not interested, and I know no one ion Alameda who is. So why the big “Suncal-is-returning” conspiracies? The only place I know of where SunCal is a viable option is in the conspiracy theorists’ camp….
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 30, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
RE: 36:
The only time I feel cheated lately is when I expect the Alameda Post-Nasal-Drip to be accurate or objective….
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 30, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
Darcy,
Can you explain how asking you to back up your claim of illegal activity on the part of a council member is intimidation?
It’s an honest question. You continue to make statements about Lena Tam and “confidential information” but to date you have produced no evidence to back it up.
You talk a good game about “honest discussions” but then refuse to enter into any. Lets have one now. Show us the back up for your continued statements about Tam so that there can be a conversation.
Comment by John Knox White — December 30, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
#58: Jon: Standard Tactic #1 — shift the burden of proof to the other person. Let’s turn that around — you find the emails that have “confidential” stamped on them and post a link here. I’d like to know how one stamps a word on an email.
On SunCal: So you forgot already about the hate campaign that SunCal directed against Ann Marie Gallant in this past election? That’s funny, because no one else did. It just seems strange that Gallant gets identified as public enemy #1 by SunCal and a week after the new council is seated, she’s gone.
It makes matters worse that no discussion took place, there’s been no explanation for this, so far. If you can explain what happened then fine, do it.
I want to point out also that all the accusations directed at Colantuono and Highsmith are complete BS. Colantuono was retained in 2002, when Carol Korade was still the city attorney (not Highsmith), to handle both litigation and non-litigation. He’s a public law attorney and Alameda is a public entity so that explains why he was hired.
Highsmith did not “steer” work to him, that’s an absurd lie. He’s on retainer, he was given work as appropriate, and since he’s still on retainer, he’s still getting work. He was not “brought on” solely for the Tam investigation.
This is the sort of calculated lying that goes on here.
Comment by dlm — December 30, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Darcy,
You’re the one making the claim. There’s no shifting of burden of proof in asking you to back it up.
“Shifting the burden of proof” would be, i don’t know, saying “Let’s turn that around — you find the emails that have “confidential” stamped on them and post a link here.”
Since you made the claim, the burde of proof is your. Show us, using the publicly available emails, what “confidential information” was provided to SunCal as you claim.
Comment by John Knox White — December 30, 2010 @ 11:34 pm
Next on the agenda from John Wayne White: 15% is greater than 85%, up is down, he is working in the best interest of Alameda, and the check’s in the mail. You prove it.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — December 30, 2010 @ 11:39 pm
It sounds like DLM and Darcy are the same person? It sounds like she has access to information from the City Attorney’s office regarding Colantuono’s contract. Can that information be shared with the rest of us? There are folks in Barstow that have been trying to reach Alameda councilmembers, but there’s been no response. We are wondering since there is an apparent relationship between Highsmith and Colantuono in Alameda, why the law firm did not assign another attorney to Barstow, knowing that Highsmith is still working for Alameda.
Comment by Craig — December 31, 2010 @ 12:15 am
63. Sounds like you never moved on from kindergarten … evidenced by all the juvenile name calling.
Comment by Carl L — December 31, 2010 @ 6:58 am
#64: This post is a crude fabrication. The officials in Barstow would be in contact with the Colantuono firm on this issue, which they certainly know how to reach.
They would not get on the phone with Alameda officials and say in effect, “Uh, do you know this Colantuono guy or what?”. It doesn’t work like that, trust me.
Comment by dlm — December 31, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
#58: Jon – “Since when is anyone suggesting any sort of relationship with SunCal?”
In the Alameda Journal today, Jon, that would be when.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/alameda/ci_16965980
“The investigation focused on allegations that Tam leaked confidential city e-mails to SunCal Companies during talks on the redevelopment of the former Navy base.
Tam denied wrongdoing and the Alameda County District Attorney Office declined to file charges against her.
The flap led representatives from SunCal — which no longer has exclusive negotiating rights with the city over the base — TO ACCUSE GALLANT OF RAISING THE E-MAIL ISSUE AS A WAY TO SIDELINE TAM AND PREVENT THE COMPANY FROM GOING FORWARD WITH ITS PROPOSAL.
THE CHARGE WAS ECHOED BY SUPPORTERS OF TAM, who won a second term in November.”
Comment by dlm — December 31, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
#66 We have been in contact with our elected officials in Barstow. A couple of them said they are calling the councilmembers in Alameda. Our local newspaper, the Desert Dispatch, has not be able to get a response from the Colantuono firm. I just thought you had some access to information. It’s okay if you don’t.
Comment by Craig — December 31, 2010 @ 6:09 pm