Old news, but definitely worthy of its own post, on Tuesday night after what was predicted to be a marathon meeting was indeed a marathon meeting, clocking in at a five hour long closed session, according to the first report out by John Knox White over on In Alameda last night. In the end the City Council went above and beyond I had guessed that they would.
While I thought there was a pretty good chance that they would be giving notice to Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant that her contract would definitely be ending on in March 2011, I didn’t even guess that the next step would be to place her on paid administrative leave. But in retrospect, it does make sense. Someone mentioned that it wouldn’t be fair to expect Ann Marie Gallant to work as a “lame duck” so to speak in these next three months. The City is under contract to pay her anyway for those three months and parting ways now will give Ann Marie Gallant the opportunity to search for a new job without needing to worry about her current job.
According to JKW, that vote to not renew Ann Marie Gallant’s contract was 3 – 2. Mayor Marie Gilmore, Rob Bonta and Lena Tam voting to not renew and Beverly Johnson and Doug deHaan voting to renew. There was a similar voting split on whether or not to place Ann Marie Gallant on paid administrative leave.
As for Terri Highsmith, the vote was a straightforward 5 – 0 to place her on administrative leave. It is not clear what her employment status is with the City because even though she has taken the contract position through Colantuono & Levin with the City of Barstow, she has yet to resign (or be asked to resign) or retire. What the administrative leave status of Terri Highsmith tells us all is that Terri Highsmith apparently had no intention of actually resigning and was going to work concurrently as the City Attorney for Alameda and work for a City of Alameda contractor as well.
Both the administrative leave for Ann Marie Gallant and Terri Highsmith were effective Tuesday night. In the meantime, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney will take over as Acting City Attorney and Lisa Goldman will take over as Acting City Manager.
In other news, the City Council set up a subcommittee of the Council made up of Doug deHaan and Beverly Johnson to review the performance of City Clerk Lara Weisiger and develop a contract.
From what I understand from a few of my City Hall sources, based on these actions taken by the City Council, I imagine there are some folks in City Hall doing cartwheels right now and perhaps a munchkin-esque dance. But of course there are those in Alameda who were just starting to recover from the bitterness of the post-election results who find themselves re-embittered.
I am a cartwheeling, card carrying Dobot and PROUD, PROUD MARY of it!!! Everyone will soon see this is the best decision for the City. It will become clear why the Council had to make this decision to start from scratch with these appointed officials. Those 2-votes against it will be wanting to erase history when everything Ms. Gallant and Ms. Highsmith were up to comes out: repeated contracts for $74,999 without proper insurance, switheroo with the dollars, cover up of real financial stories, contracts and deals with friends, it will all come out. Yea, I know some people will say we’re ganging up and cooking up conspiracies, but what we will get from City Hall and these new policy and administrative leaders will be the stories folks have been dying to tell, the transparent truth, but they couldn’t be told because of the dictatorship!
The moment Ms. Gallant and Ms. Highsmith conspired with EXISTING Councilmembers (you know who you are — count to 2) to get rid of the former City Manager, their dirty trickery paved the way for them to reap what they sowed. Perhaps the election results are what the conspiring Council members reaped! This community voted for change, I for one am glad, happy, overjoyed, that this is what we’re getting.
Happy New Year!
Comment by Nadia Comaneci — December 30, 2010 @ 8:46 am
“How bad must Hell be that the Devil(s) all want out?”
Comment by Dennis Green — December 30, 2010 @ 11:54 am
At least we can look forward to an uncensored July 4 Parade next year that will honor the First Amendment to the Constitution…..
Acting City Attorney Donna Mooney is a former journalist and will be a much better city attorney, whether interim or permanent, than our former one. She “gets” freedom of expression and apparently was paying attention during her Constitutional Law classes at school.)
Comment by Jon Spangler — December 30, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Oh, Spangler, are you still kicking that moldy old dead horse? Jeez, get something resembling a life!
Comment by Dennis Green — December 30, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
I’m not re-embittered, I’m just sad. And a little stunned that the fans of this cheesy blog are blind to the fact that the 3 Sun Cal minions will soon bankrupt this city to benefit developers and the Perata machine. No need to be bitter though: I get to just sit back and watch the clouds roll in.
Comment by Liz Williams — December 30, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
# 5
My sentiments exactly.
I just wonder what they will write about now that Gallant is gone.
What will their spies in City Hall do now that they they don’t have to report in everytime Ms. Gallant takes a pee.
Comment by frank — December 31, 2010 @ 8:45 am
4,5,6, So how are those sour grapes tasting to you all.
Comment by John piziali — December 31, 2010 @ 9:31 am
Damn! We’re fresh out of scapegoats.
Comment by Denise Shelton — December 31, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Yo, Do in the spirit of “Onward and upward” what’s all of the “payback” costing the city. Just so that I understand the general anger was that city was spending time and money persecuting your peeps, now the city is spending time and money persecuting those you accused of persecuting your peeps.
Do, do us a favor and look through your Alameda City invoices and let us know how much outside council is billing the city to provide advice on the best method for payback. Only if you can tear yourself away from watching obscure city council meeting of course.
Sometime next year the city may get back to serving the people of the city, in the meantime back room dealings and revenge are on the agenda.
Well the city will get back to serving the people when all of the existing people that know anything about the city are gone and the new people spend the months learning “what’s what”, then again maybe the current cabal doesn’t want anybody to waste time thinking better to have new people just do what they’re told. I sure that’s what Suncal is advising. On the other hand maybe there’s a firm advising on the best way to outsource the city offices.
Happy New Year,
Comment by AlamedaDude — December 31, 2010 @ 11:38 am
#6 – They can get a great deal of mileage about how right they were now that everything is going their way. The spies can regale us with in-depth analyses of how this recent action is not a violation of the Brown Act and showcases the SunCal slate’s commitment to open government and transparency. You know: war is peace, and so on.
Comment by Liz Williams — December 31, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
How is it that when Lauren, John, Michele, and a few others get their information from sources inside City Hall it’s somehow nefarious, spying, etc, yet when Action Alameda features a direct quote said to have come from inside the room of the closed session of the City Council the same voices are strangely silent? Discuss.
Comment by david burton — December 31, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
I agree with David. When I saw that post it occurred to me that the information shared had to come from a party at the closed session, which is, as we have heard so often, forbidden. And the claims of violation of the Brown Act are just plain ludicrous. The notice was out four days before the meeting and was one heck of a lot clearer as to intent than most of what we have seen for the past couple of years. The Mayor came out after the session and reported the actions/votes taken just as required. It was late in the evening, for sure, but for those who “hung in there” to pick it up on the feed or the t.v., the information was available Tuesday before midnight.
Comment by Kate Quick — December 31, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
#7
At least for me it is not ‘sour grapes’. We live in a Democracy.
Like Liz I am saddened because we lost a fiscally strong ICM.
In many ways I prefer you have a clean sweep. This ways when things take a crap you will have only yourselves and not Ms. Gallant to blame.
I am betting before this is over we will see more Parcel Taxes starting with a Public Service Tax.
Comment by frank — January 1, 2011 @ 7:36 am
#11
I don’t read Action Alameda. I just checked it out to find what you were talking about.
Sensationalist Gossip is the same be it coming from Action Alameda, Blogging Bayport or Fox News. It is irelevant.
I have no problem with JKW posting the results of a closed session.
I do have problems with some of the City Hall Confidential posts that he has made.
I also have a problem when a member of the Sunshine Commision has a Political Agenda. I strongly feel such a body should be politically neutral or at least do their work silently.
Comment by frank — January 1, 2011 @ 7:44 am
It is clear that in the case of Gallant that the City Council has made a mistake. The special meeting agenda should have had two items if Gallant was going to be discussed in addition to Highsmith and not one. Also, the city charter bars action against the City Manager during a 90 day window after election. It seems possible that “paid administrative leave” does not equal suspension and/or that the “interim” city manager is not entitled to charter rights granted the city manager, but those questions are both open to litigation. Gallant is not shy of litigation so if she thinks she can get additional money because of questionable actions by the Council then she will try and the Council has left the door wide open. This is above and beyond the fact that she gets paid until the end of her contract for doing nothing.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 1, 2011 @ 12:52 pm
Here’s the language from the Charter, and an excellent comment posted on Action Alameda:
http://www.action-alameda-news.com/2010/12/31/sources-describe-stalinist-purge-at-alameda-city-hall/#comments
“The basic legal foundation for Alameda is its Charter. The wisdom of our forefathers in writing the Charter shows their belief that firing someone too quickly after assuming office is so damaging to the good of our city that it was prohibited.
City of Alameda Charter Sec. 2-2 states:
“The following offices are hereby established and the incumbents thereof shall be appointed or removed by a vote of a majority of the full Council: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk.
During a period of ninety days immediately following the date of installation of any person newly elected to the Council at a regular or special municipal election or of any person newly appointed to the Council, the Council shall take no action, whether immediate or prospective, to remove, suspend, request the resignation of, or reduce the salary of, the incumbents in the aforementioned appointive offices.”
So it appears Harvard lawyer, Councilmember Bonta has made a decision that putting someone on paid administrative leave and sending them out of their office does not constitute “Removal” and therefore does not violate the Charter. Hope he practices in the employment portion of the SF City Attorney’s office or in addition to paying highly qualified people to not work, we undoubtedly now face potential legal challenges by these maligned employees. Arrogant and ignorant are two words that keep coming to mind.
Of additional use for voters:
Sec. 20-1. “The holder of any elective office of this City may be recalled from office at any time by the qualified electors thereof, provided he has held his or her office for a least six months. The provisions of this article are intended to apply to officials now in office, as well as to those hereafter elected.”
Can papers be taken out for recall before 6 months, if the election will not take place until that six months is up? This is important as Adam Gillig points out above, because we now have a City Council that clearly says one thing about wanting open government and complying with applicable laws, and does the exact opposite.
Unless keeping Ms. Quick and John Knox White on Tam’s email list for confidential reports constitutes “open government”. Quick certainly seems to be on the inside here, she has all knowing explanations for everything. The League of Women Voters, “champions of transparency” if they truly are such champions and not self-interested hypocrites, should be embarassed.”
Comment by dlm — January 1, 2011 @ 2:15 pm
Elliott, the lower courts have stated that Administrative leave and suspension are different things. So there’s no litigation to be had there. The Brown Act does not require separate lines for each employee, in fact the act clear (in other areas, where more specifics are required that multiple employees are covered by one agenda item).
I think that the recommendations by the Sunshine Task Force indicate our unanimous interest in having items like this spelled out in greater detail than required by law, it’s pretty clear that no laws were broken last Tuesday in regards to the action taken or noticing.
Ironically, the meeting agenda was far better noticed than those of the previous sitting council. Besides issuing notice over 5 days before the meeting (instead of the required 24 hours, as was the, legal, practice of Johnson, Gallant, and Highsmith). We should be asking for even greater clarity, but the accusations of illegal, or nefarious, action are greatly exaggerated by folks who want it to be true, despite the fact that it isn’t.
Comment by John Knox White — January 1, 2011 @ 2:20 pm
17. Mind citing said statements, “…lower courts have stated that Administrative leave and suspension are different things,…”?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 1, 2011 @ 2:40 pm
Thanks for the info about suspension vs. paid adminsitrative leave although I would also like to see cites because the devil is in the details. It hardly matters whether the Council has an argument or not; what matters is whether Gallant has an argument. Also, I really don’t think you have it right about the employee vs. employees distinction. The act is pretty explicit in the section covering discipline using the singular and read in context to the other items in that section, I would have to believe that multiple agenda items ARE necessary. Again, it really doesn’t matter because the threat of litigation is enough. If I were on the Council, I would just repeat the item with respect to Gallant at the next meeting.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 1, 2011 @ 3:03 pm
Of course, if I were on the Council, I would be not in favor of putting Gallant on paid administrative leave. Although it is clear she is a strong personality, appears to be willing to skirt rules that get in her way, and is probably abrasive to many; the positives of being action-oriented, strong in negotiation, and already paid for outweigh the negatives. Of course, my opinion is colored by the fact that I am really no fan of Tam just like many others opinions are colored by the fact that they really love Tam (to the point of overlooking the fact that no reasonable explanation of her lack of judgement in using bcc has ever been forthcoming even if it failed to rise to a criminal violation).
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 1, 2011 @ 3:09 pm
Elliott and Jack,
Will get them to you, I have them currently in hard copy, and not near me. Will need to dig them up and post later.
Comment by John Knox White — January 1, 2011 @ 4:07 pm
17. Part of me is skeptical about your certainty of lower courts’ decisions in this matter because unless this matter was defined and decided in state general law as covering both incorporated and charter cities, it may not be necessarily binding on a charter city
The other part of me believes that administrative leave is “action” under this definition, “…the Council shall take no action, whether immediate or prospective, to remove, suspend, request the resignation of, or reduce the salary of, the incumbents in the aforementioned appointive offices.”
Comment by Jack Richard — January 1, 2011 @ 4:52 pm
Don’t know if it’s a fact, but I’d bet Administrative Leave is a precursor to termination in a high percentage of Alameda City Council actions of this sort.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 1, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
So where (or who) was the ICM’s ICM who should have advised the half cocked council to ease the hammer back to a non-fire position?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 1, 2011 @ 5:56 pm
Jack/Elliott: Any thoughts about the meaning of “propective” actions in this context? It seems to me that a decision to fire someone on a date certain should qualify as a “prospective” action at the very least. I would tend to think of it as an “immediate” action as well but in legal terms, I don’t know.
Comment by dlm — January 1, 2011 @ 6:16 pm
Or any thoughts on John White being the messenger boy for the City instead of the City speaking for itself in an official capacity?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 1, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
26.
Maybe self-appointed.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 1, 2011 @ 7:07 pm
25
To me, the intent of the clause is to not let non-deliberative action (hence the 90 day delay) be taken by newly installed representatives of the citizens of the city which may undermine confidence, by the voters at large, in the electoral process of the city.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 1, 2011 @ 7:37 pm
We’re going to need another parcel tax to help pay for all the lawsuits.
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 1, 2011 @ 8:10 pm
I am wondering if the fact that AMG was the ICM and not the CM makes a difference. She was hired on a contract to be the ICM, not the CM, and what the council did was give her the required 90 day notice that on March 31, when her contract is up, she will not be continuing as ICM. Therefore, even if ICM and CM are interpreted to be the same, the Council would be within the charter requirement not to “off” anyone before 90 days.
Just wondering. I bet the council had the advice of a legal firm specializing in personnel work in doing this action.
I think the description of the agenda item 3-C did not preclude more than one person to be under consideration and therefore was adequate.
I was amused by the characterization of what occurred as a “Stalinist Purge” by the folks at Action Alameda. I posted an attempt to explain things as best I knew how and was quite rudely and nastily advised that I wasn’t supposed to post on their site where I guess they only want to hear from those who agree with them. I like this site better as we hear from all sides, and it often gives me food for thought or for researching things a bit further.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 1, 2011 @ 8:41 pm
Okay, so sometime between their initial meeting on 12/21, and their special meeting on 12/28, the new council majority, by some unknown means, decided to contact outside counsel for advice? If so, then they must have done so in a secretive fashion. Of course, they may have had this whole plan under discussion before their first meeting, which is the greater likelihood, and they may have sought advice without making any formal request as councilmembers, also in a secretive fashion.
My sense is that this whole thing is going to keep unraveling over time, and the spin is going to keep ramping up. Every excuse that’s tendered is going to fail.
Here’s a wonderfully ironic quote from the city’s press release:
“Gilmore and other leaders have promised to rebuild trust with the community. ‘Alameda must move forward,’ noted Gilmore, ‘and that requires permanent staff and a total commitment to stability, transparency and resolving conflicts in good faith’.”
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/news/1012_pr_council_names_goldman_acting_city_manager.html
Comment by dlm — January 1, 2011 @ 9:49 pm
There is a difference between “firing” someone and not renewing their contract. Neither the ICM nor the City Attorney are guaranteed indefinite employment. They both have contracts that have ending dates. If given notice appropriate to the contract, their last day of work would be the last day of their contract.
Also, in order to have an action, you have to have a damage. The ICM has a contract with a pay schedule that goes through March 31, 2011. If she continues to be paid, it is hard to imagine what damages she suffered from being paid while on Administrative leave. Without damages, there is no case.
Also, the City Council, whether dealing with SunCal or some employee action cannot live in fear of being sued. They do need to do their due diligence in assessing the risk of litigation, but they cannot be paralyzed into inaction out of fear that someone, someday might sue.
Comment by John — January 2, 2011 @ 2:44 am
I did a Google search on Brown Act Compliance.
The first hit was from Mike McMahon’s site.I found this interesting in lieu of what has transpired not to mention the parties involved.
Begin quoted material
School board told to get transparent
Voters group says educators should embrace spirit of open meetings law
Alameda Times Star, February 25, 2004, Jill Tucker
The Alameda County League of Women Voters chastised the county Board of Education for vague meeting agendas and minutes, saying the trustees were not meeting the intent of the Brown Act.
In a letter to the trustees dated Feb. 17, the chairwoman of the county League identified agenda items that didn’t adequately specify potential actions to be taken by the board and meeting minutes that were vague.
For example, Lena Tam wrote, the Jan. 11 agenda listed an item as “Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting for approval of Board Policy 9250, sections 1.A and III, Item D,” with no further explanation.
The first policy allows the board to increase its stipend annually by 5 percent, while the second policy gave trustees computers, faxes, phone lines and Internet service at no cost.
The policies were approved.
“The public had no clue that these two important items were to be discussed and approved,” Tam wrote.
The letter called on the board to follow the “basic requirements” of the Brown Act, which ensures public access to and information about governmental meetings. Tam also urged the trustees to “go beyond the minimum requirements, and honor the spirit and intent of the act as well.”
Board of Education President Yvonne Cerrato said she had seen the letter Wednesday and would be looking into each of the examples cited. The board would formally respond to the League of Women Voters as well, she added.
“Our intent is to be very diligent with the public to make sure they’re adequately informed,” Cerrato said.
end quoted material
Comment by frank — January 2, 2011 @ 7:12 am
The conspiracy folks go on. At the time the agenda was published it was clear that some action was to be considered. I am sure that the Council keeps legal firms on retainer for helping out with specialized actions. They could have simply asked the City Attorney’s office to contact the firm for advice. Considering an action and taking an action are two very different things.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 2, 2011 @ 7:16 am
Kate, I understand that you have faith in the Council, but I think it is causing you to jump to conclusions. I don’t know if they consulted outside counsel or not, but I would wonder how such a contract would work in the absence of a city manager or city attorney to assist the Council in the execution. The consultation with outside counsel would be public record so that question can be easily solved (especially because they discussed litigation on the 28th, it would be interesting to know who was there to assist in that). On the other hand, consultation with the deputy city attorney is problematic because until they put Highsmith on leave, the city attorney’s office reported exclusively to Highsmith. I think you are wrong, but you have the tools to confirm your beliefs.
For the record, I don’t think that there is a conspiracy of Bonta, Tam, and Gilmore – just poor judgement in some cases, honest policy disagreement in others, and a lot of petty personal BS to the detriment of Alameda.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 2, 2011 @ 8:16 am
John, the damages are not so important as the cost of litigation. If a Brown Act violation is recognized then the action is as if it never happened. If the action never happened then the notice wasn’t given. If the notice wasn’t given then she is owed for 90 days from when the notice is actually given.
There is a counterargument to this line of thought too, but the point is that the Council should probably just redo the vote and not “buy themselves a lawsuit” by sticking to their guns that they are perfect.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 2, 2011 @ 8:25 am
Repeating actions just to make sure it’s done right has pretty good precedent
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 2, 2011 @ 9:22 am
Elliott — As a newly elected official to the Alameda Hospital Board, can you help publicize the board meetings agendas and schedules. I went on the website,
http://alamedahospital.org/aboutussubpages/districtboard.htm, and found no archives of past agendas, or records of actions takens, whether they were announcements from closed session or even open sessions.
Comment by Alamedan1 — January 2, 2011 @ 11:18 am
You have to go one level deeper by clicking on the text that says “CLICK HERE to view District Board Meeting Notices and Announcements”
http://www.alamedahospital.org/aboutussubpages/district-board-meeting-notices.html
This takes you to the agendas, attachments, and video links for past meetings. The next regular meeting is Monday, January 10; the agenda should be up on or before Friday, January 7. In addition, you can follow my informal, non-endorsed, speaking only for myself, hypercritical take on the Hospital at
http://ahdboard-eg.blogspot.com/
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 2, 2011 @ 2:20 pm
Happy New Year to all.
@16 Please don’t insult Harvard grads. Bonta went to Yale undergrad and Yale Law School.
Yale Law is famous for producing graduates who have difficulty passing the California Bar exam, in comparison with those from Harvard, Michigan, NYU, etc. Essentially Yale’s law teaching is too abstract.
I’ve always wondered why, after so many years as a lawyer, Bonta has not at least tried to get a high paying job with a legitimate law firm. If it’s because he believes in “public service” let’s see how well he does in protecting the taxpayer in his votes, i.e. not pandering to those who put him into office.
Comment by BigAl — January 2, 2011 @ 4:55 pm
Elliot – The meeting was adequately noticed. No one was “fired”. The council voted to advice the ICM that her contract as ICM would not be renewed on March 31, more than the 90 days required. It did not preclude her from applying for the CM position. They then put her on administrative leave. As to the City Attorney, for the meeting they had the deputy city attorney acting as the city attorney (she was on vacation) and voted to utilize the firm of Myers-Nave to advice them on the actions they were taking, with the agreement of the deputy city attorney, as required. They did not “fire” the City Attorney, either. They put her on paid administrative leave. Since she had been caught on tape accepting a position with the city of Barstow the night of the 20th and had not informed anyone on the Council of that, they acted, I think correctly to put her situation in abeyance until things could be sorted out. Again, she was not terminated.
The decisions/votes taken were reported out by the Mayor at about 10:30 pm. Mr. Knox-White posted that information (what she said; nothing about the discussion)which was now public at 11:27 pm. Mr. Howard posted on Action Alameda a supposed quote from the Mayor that came during the discusssion, which is not allowed – it must have been given to him by one of the participants in the closed session and the discussion is private; only the results/votes are made public. The subjects discussed, potential litigation and personnel are deemed appropriate for closed session under the Brown Act.
And BTW, the City Charter section that says the newly elected people on the council can’t fire anyone until they have been in office 90 days wasn’t violated, because they didn’t fire anyone.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 2, 2011 @ 8:08 pm
Kate, you are being overly defensive. I’m glad they had legal counsel, but if you read the Brown Act in the relevant section, it seems to me that each separate discipline item would have to be noticed separately per employee. Now you are telling me that the non-renewal of the contract wasn’t a disciplinary matter, then it wasn’t noticed at all. Which is it? If every lawyer was always right then Lena Tam would have been kicked off the Council per Colountano (that didn’t happen) and she’ll get reimbursed 44,000 per Keker(which I hope to God doesn’t happen; if it does, I will spend my own money to help recall those who vote for it.)
I am speculating that Gallant has a good argument and we know she is not litigation shy.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 2, 2011 @ 8:34 pm
If Gallant wants to sue, let her hire a lawyer, pay said lawyer and file suit. The council made a decision, with advice of counsel, and is going to move on.
The Council should evaluate the risks of litigation (which it appears they did), but should not be paralyzed by a fear of litigation.
By the way, Kate Quick’s comment didn’t strike me as defensive. I also do not know Ms. Quick personally.
Comment by John — January 2, 2011 @ 8:58 pm
You’re right John. I don’t know if she will or not and I’m done speculating. In all likelihood, this Council will operate the same way the Hospital Board has for so many years.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 2, 2011 @ 9:12 pm
Eilliott might want to save his money defending himself against a recall in March 2011.
Comment by Alameda Hospital Supporter — January 2, 2011 @ 9:23 pm
For what purpose would anyone waste money recalling me? so that the votes can be unanimous for paying money for subpar health outcomes instead of 4-1?
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 2, 2011 @ 9:41 pm
#45
Becareful what you wish for.
After the “Storkegate Scandal” you might end up having the entire board recalled.
Comment by frank — January 3, 2011 @ 5:37 pm
There was another little gem on the City Council’s closed session agenda:
“3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.9 (b)
Number of cases: One”
I wonder what that one was about? Who, besides SunCal, Gallant and Highsmith, has the City of Alameda offended recently?
Comment by BigAl — January 3, 2011 @ 11:04 pm
Al,
Just about every Council agenda for the past many years has had an item on it like that. It’s nothing new. City’s are threatened with possible lawsuits all the time.
It was neither a gem, nor interesting. Time will tell if it becomes something else.
Comment by John Knox White — January 4, 2011 @ 8:09 am
Jack and Elliot,
The citations I mentioned include:
polhill v County of LA and Frey v City of East Palo Alto
among others. Add in the rule of statutory construction, and how courts have interpreted it, the fact that “administrative leave” is specifically not included in a long list of actions the council is precluded from taking within 90-days of a swearing-in means that there is no there, there.
Apologies for the delay in getting back.
Comment by John Knox White — January 4, 2011 @ 8:16 am
Thanks, any insight from the courts on the question of separate agenda items for multiple disciplinary/release discussion/action
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 9:06 am
JKW, I can only find one Frey case and he WAS disciplined with more than just paid administrative leave. In addition, the only case I found was unpublished which means (I think) that it has no precedential value. Any pointers? Could not find any mention of the Polhill case.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 9:13 am
Elliott: While unpublished opinions are not binding precedent they can be persuasive. If there is no other authority on point, then better to have something persuasive as opposed to nothing at all.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 4, 2011 @ 9:53 am
I thought they were unpublished specfically to preclude citation and discourage their use. Anyway, I did not find that the unpublished case i was reading had a relevant point to this discussion. One thing I am unclear about is how the use of “paid administrative leave” does not constitute “removal” since the powers of the office are divested from the individual. That seems pretty cut and dried to me, but interpretations obviously differ.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 11:29 am
#50: In response to JKW’s legal screed above, I got an opinion from a real lawyer:
Spending time on JKW is like spending time raking leaves on a windy day, or cleaning the toilet when everyone in the family has the runs.
Has Tam given him a specific citation to authority as any good lawyer would produce? As most judges who do law and motion will tell you, lawyers cite cases wrongfully all the time. That is why they have research attorneys. Nearly every dispute has lawyers citing the same cases on both sides to stand for the exact opposite principle. Which statute was being interpreted and for what purpose? How old is that interpretaion? Which court or level of court is being cited as authority. Is a court that is considered to be controlling jurisdiction here in Alameda County? The US Supreme Court? 9th Ciurcuit Ct. of Appeals? The CA Supreme Court? First District Court of Appeals (ours), 2nd, 3rd, 4th , 5th, etc? All of these must be considered by the judge deciding any paticular case. And it is totally appropriate for an attorney who has a good faith belief that the law is wrong, to still bring the case for a judicial determination. And appeal up to a level that can change that law. In this case it would be based in part on the language including in the adopting reports, voters pamphlets etc. All would point to an independent judge reviewing whether whatever case law JKW states is correct and remains appropriate given the language of the adopting fathers of our Charter.
If JKW hasn’t reviewed all of the above, and hasn’t passed the bar, it would be better to defer to someone who has done both.
Comment by dlm — January 5, 2011 @ 2:54 pm
Wow Darcy, your ‘real lawyer’ really countered the points. Oh wait, they didn’t.
Nothing like ad hominem distractions to try and hide the fact that you have no points to bring to the table.
I would imagine a ‘real lawyer’ who is proffered as an expert in refuting a iscussion about specific issues might actual present real information. Now that would be an “honest discussion.”
Comment by John Knox White — January 5, 2011 @ 3:15 pm
#56: That’s not an answer. Go see my comment on the Depeche Mode thread (#33) re the Brown Act v. the City Charter and see if you can respond — intelligently — to that.
Otherwise, John, you’re a vicious creep for the kind of personal attacks that you launch on people, evidently because you have no substantive arguments to make.
Comment by dlm — January 5, 2011 @ 4:35 pm
Darcy, what, pray tell, was I suppose to answer? There was neither a question, nor a statement. Just a long rant that never touched the actual conversation.
I do want to thank you for the laugh with “you’re a vicious creep for the kind of personal attacks that you launch on people.”
Nothing says “honest discussion” like personally attacking someone for making personal attacks.
I’m curious which dastardly personal attacks you are referring to? links would be appreciated.
Comment by John Knox White — January 5, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
John: I saw your presentation on the Sunshine Ordinance last night — you were perfectly civil and well-spoken, as usual. This is your “public forum” face. Then you go online and start spewing hatred at people. If you have any concern about ethical behavior, which I assume you must, then how do you justify doing this?
The post you had on SD&R re: the departure of Ann Marie Gallant was really nasty and conveyed genuine hatred for her, which has no basis in fact. I keep thinking there’s some decency under there somewhere, but I should know better by now.
I went on the CalAware site recently and took a look at their mission — here’s the summary statement:
“Mission: The primary objectives and purposes of [CalAware] shall be: To foster the improvement of, compliance with and public understanding and use of, public forum law, which deals with people’s rights to find out what citizens need to know to be truly self-governing, and to share what they know and believe without fear or loss.”
“Share what they know and believe without fear or loss”. That’s the antithesis of intimidation, John, the kind of intimidation that you deal in.
You claim to think so much of Terry Francke, I can’t imagine that he’d go online and do what you do.
Comment by dlm — January 5, 2011 @ 6:25 pm
Again, can you post a link? I didn’t write anything about the departure of Ann Marie Gallant on Stop Drop and Roll.
Comment by John Knox White — January 5, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
From the recent posting on the qualifications for a new city manager:
“Commitment to transparency. it’s surprising that this would need to be called out, but after two years of “top secret” projects, and threats against everyone under the sun if word got out about some project, it’s time for the public to be brought in to what the City is planning.”
You’re accusing Ann Marie Gallant of “threats against everyone under the sun”, with no justification, it’s just a chance to get a few nasty comments in, under the pretext of discussing the city manager search.
This is why I’m talking about. If you had to express opinions here without resorting to personal attacks or distortions of the truth, you’d be in trouble.
Comment by dlm — January 5, 2011 @ 7:48 pm
DLM,
ask around, it was well known that Gallant referred to projects like the consolidation of Alameda’s business associations as “top secret” projects and threatened employees with retribution if they talked to anyone, inside or outside of City Hall. It’s not distorted truth, it’s what actually happened over many months with many employees.
I’m sorry that this reality doesn’t align with your version, but it’s not an attack on a person to point out to specific actions the person has taken, no matter how inappropriate they are.
Comment by John Knox White — January 5, 2011 @ 10:33 pm
JKW, I hope to heck the council is getting better advice from “council” than to rely on those cites. I won’t pretend to be a lawyer (like some); but in laymen’s terms if that’s all I had; I would bend over and kiss my sweet ass goodbye.
Comment by alamedadude — January 10, 2011 @ 12:56 pm