One new blog on the Alameda front has angrily been calling for Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley to look into Action Alameda and Company’s allegations that there was a Brown Act violation during the December 28th meeting of the City Council which resulted in both City Attorney Terri Highsmith and Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant being placed on administrative leave. Additionally, the City Council opted to give Ann Marie Gallant that they would not be renewing her contract and begin a search for a permanent City Manager. (more on that later)
So anyway, this blog is called Raising Hell for Good and written by Denise Hylen Lai, who maybe best known for being a huge fan of the work of David Howard and Action Alameda, literally liking and commenting on nearly every post ever created on the Alamedans for Fair Taxation Facebook page. The tagline for her website is:
RESTORING SELF-DETERMINATION. Who exactly are the wo/men behind the Oz-ian curtain?? This is a THROW-DOWN to those abusing their positions of authority in the City of Alameda, California. —- GAME ON. [original emphasis]
One of the latest “throw-downs” is over Mayor Marie Gilmore’s Council Referral item for tonight which suggests that the Council consider the recommendation from the Sunshine Task Force’s new Ordinance. In her Council Referral the Mayor is suggesting that the order of the City Council agenda be tweaked a little to move Non Agendized Public Comment to the start of the City Council meetings.
It’s clear from liberal ALL CAPS and bolding used by Denise Lai that she finds this subject to be very egrigious. Screen caps follow of the post:
So, let me first say, I understand how Denise Lai could be confused by the referral and assume that the public comment is limited to only 15 minutes, but the key to the referral is that it references the Sunshine Task Force’s ordinance which suggests that while a section of non-agenda Public Comment be placed before the regular business gets taken care of, that there still be time for Public Comment after the regular agenda items are complete:
Sec. 2.15. Public Testimony.
(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide, before undertaking regular business and again at the end of the meeting, an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public that are within the policy body’s subject matter jurisdiction, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by Section 2.5(e) of this article. [emphasis added]
In fact the ordinance goes on to clarify how the before regular agenda item public comment would work, including randomizing a drawing if more than 5 people (3 minutes per person) want to speak. The balance of speakers would then have to wait until the end of the meeting after all agenda items are heard to speak — as it is currently. The point of this is to make public comment more accessible — not less — to the average Alameda citizen. Given the length of some of these meetings, folks who want to speak on non-agenda items have to wait until midnight or later to get heard, most people probably end up going home rather than waiting around to speak.
Of course this is only just non-agenda public comment items as well, most people who trek down to City Hall during these meetings generally have things to say about items on the agenda and this Council Referral does nothing to “silence public opinion.”
Personally, I hope all the Council members vote to change the City Council agendas to let non agenda public comment to be heard before tackling regular agenda items. Bookending City Council meetings with open public comment periods would allow for people who know what they want to say get it out of the way without needing to stick through the whole City Council meeting, and those that think of things during the meeting itself have the option of talking after everything has concluded. Win — win.
Also, I’m deliberately ignoring the passage about the role of our elected officials as not being “leaders” but instead “followers” that deserves a whole dissection of its own, but for now, I’m letting that one lie. And also…the “Special meeting” is different than the “Regular meeting“ and has its own special agenda. I would suggest that if you are interested in speaking on the Council Referral item that you watch it on TV first, then head out when it gets closer to the Referral item instead of just showing up at 6:00 p.m. when closed session will happen otherwise you’ll be waiting quite a while to speak your piece as to why the City Council shouldn’t move a portion of public comment before all the other agendized items.
I refer to them as the “Chicken Little Club”. No the sky is not falling, no the mushroom cloud above us isn’t retribution for the movie theater and of course, SunCal will not march through the Posie tube at night with tanks. Of course they also need to put clouds in front of the sunshine committee.
There is a chicken sandwich joint in Oakland called Bakesale Bette’s. Lauren referred to it in her new years post. So if you go to their yelp review, it has about 1000 reviews. 990 of them are great and about 10 people said it sucks. This is just like them. They don’t question that they might be wrong as an overwhelming majority see the good. They just think they are the only 10 smart people on the planet. As frustrating as it is they get theirs in the end. 990 of us get to enjoy it and those people in their stupidity will miss out. We know Marie is smart and quite capable of giving us a transparent local government. Even better she is a doer and so we will get some stuff done.
Comment by Member of a real family — January 4, 2011 @ 6:30 am
Tranparent Goverment means tranparency for all.
I think the majority of Alamedans had no idea what was coming down at the last Closed Session.
I think a chosen minority had a ‘heads up’.
Was this ‘illegal’ under the Brown Act? I have no idea. Did it violated the ‘spirit’ of the Brown Act. Using Lena Tams own words form her complaint years ago Yes.
I don’t know much about Denise Lai or her politics but it seems she brought to light the shenanigans over at Alameda Hospital. If this were allowed to continue and someone died there would be a massive lawsuit that would affect all of us. So for whatever it is worth from me she has my respect.
It is really easy to call people ‘stupid’ or even ‘imply racism’ as someone else did the other day.
Comment by frank — January 4, 2011 @ 7:09 am
Frank, the noticing of the last meeting was done far in advance of the 72 hours required. It met all the rules of proper noticing. I agree that most of our citizens did not know what was going to happen, but that is because most people don’t pay attention and/or don’t particularly care about City Hall politics. I wish more did care and pay attention.
Denise’s over the top outcries, as with those on ActionAlameda and Raising Hell for Good in general do not serve to foster a cooperative and collegial dialogue about City issues – they are sensationalist, often emotional, and seldom factual expositions of negativism. Once and awhile they get it right, but often facts are not allowed to get in their way. As with the “firings” “Stalinist Purge” pronouncements. The ICM and the City Attorney were not fired; they were put on administrative leave – one pending the end of a contract which required that she be noticed 90 days in advance if it were not to be continued, and one who confused everyone by taking a job elsewhere and not telling the City what she had done.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 4, 2011 @ 7:41 am
roflcopter, Alameda is one of the funniest places to live. You would think that Marie Gilmore et al was rounding up NIMBYs and forcing them to walk the plank
Comment by E — January 4, 2011 @ 7:45 am
Lauren et al,
It’s true, I overstated in my post yesterday, the dire consequences of agenda item 8a tonight. But given two things, the new mayors illegal tromp through last week—yes, frank: she violated The Brown Act and our City Charter; where’s Kate Quick and the LWV’s leadership on these very serious violations?!—and the very clear, very specific agenda attachement that DOES NOT include a second Oral Communications agenda item, it’s not unreasonable to assume Mayor Gilmore’s intent is not more sunshine. Her threatening behavior last week makes it reasonable to expect more of the same. Thanks for the call out, Lauren. I find it very interesting that those reporting on city matters are concealing last week (The Island headline today says today’s meeting is the new council’s first meeting; not true) or redirecting their readers’ attention onto me instead of reporting the real troubling issue here: the violations by our new mayor of state and city laws. She’s an attorney with 8 years on our city council; she knows very well the laws she’s violating. Why aren’t you outraged? And no, I did not vote for her, but even if I had, I would now have the same concerns and be engaged in civic action to force her to desist behaving illegally. Why aren’t you? The Brown Act and our City Charter are beloved and effective documents. Willful violations of them, particularly multiple in one week, are very, very serious.
Comment by Denise Lai — January 4, 2011 @ 7:57 am
Denise Lai: Or it is the case that you may be “overstating” what happened at the 12/28 meeting and therefore it’s not worthy of dissection.
You and others can cry “Brown Act violation” to your heart’s content, but the reality is that the Special Meeting was noticed well in advance of the required 72 hours. The topic of discussion was well spelled out — more so than previously. Much like the whole Lena Tam investigation issue, I’ll wait until the DA’s Office or the Attorney General’s office weighs in — I believe you have contacted both. But based on my understanding of the Brown Act — which is probably as similarly informed as yours — I do not see a violation other than the quote that was leaked out that Action Alameda reported on which was purportedly a direct quote by Marie Gilmore.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 4, 2011 @ 8:11 am
See this is why being civil has its limitations in political discourse. Kate, you really are being a bozo here.
Reasonable people expected that the agenda item on 12/28 referred to Highsmith. It was clearly a surprise to many that action was taken with respect to Gallant. A reasonable reading of the Brown Act (not the only reading, but it seems pretty clear to me and JKW has not offered those precedents he promised) is that each discussion/action per employee should be noticed separately on the agenda. Now most people when faced with this situation would think, “Well, I don’t agree but it costs nothing to accommodate this complaint. We have a meeting already scheduled so we can just redo the vote. Since we have taken no final action on Highsmith, there will not be any cost until we actually do terminate her so this is procedural. With regard to Gallant, we still get the 90 day notice in more or less. I don’t think we have to, and I hate bowing to these people I don’t really like, but we will redo the vote.”
That’s not the Alameda way. The Alameda way is to shout, “You’re wrong! You’re a bunch of conspiracy nuts! We consulted counsel! We won’t ever do anything to suggest that we think you might have a point.”
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 8:34 am
And in fact when Denise Lai pointed out the whole stroke scandal, what I outlined above is exactly what happened until the County forced Alameda Hospital to acknowledge their error.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 8:40 am
Lauren: you should perhaps read The Brown Act, and my blogpost detailing the sections violated. Agreed: no one in a closed session should be quoted anywhere; just like no one in the media should be receiving preferential notice of the actions taken in the closed session by city councilmembers. Our councilmembers need to shore up their behavior across the board and start behaving with the decorum the office deserves. It’s too bad that people is this town decide which side they are on and then, rather than honest dissection of the issues, hate or like things and people irrationally. It serves no one. Worse, no one seems to be able to break their chosen ranks to stand up for right versus wrong, beneficial versus harmful.
Comment by Denise Lai — January 4, 2011 @ 8:41 am
Well damn! JKW gets back to me on the precedents for admin leave vs. discipline almost at the same time I am typing my message although the question of separate noticed items which I think is the more salient one is still open.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 8:51 am
As it turns out, Michele Ellson was out on holiday and wasn’t apprised of last week’s city council meeting–assuming tonight’s meeting was the first one was reasonable! She’s removed “first” from her headline now that she’s knows tonight’s meeting is the second city council meeting. If you haven’t read it yet, Michele wrote a big picture article about Ann Marie Gallant’s tenure as our city manager; very good: http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2011/01/city-hall-outgoing-city-manager-cut-a-wide-swath/
Comment by Denise Lai — January 4, 2011 @ 8:52 am
Elliott and everyone: it was reasonable to assume the action item related to Highsmith because Mayor Gilmore, when specifically asked, told some of her councilmembers that it was not going to be about Gallant. So yes, it was reasonable to 1. not be prepared to talk about Gallant’s contract in the open session, 2. for some councilmembers not to be prepared to talk about Gallant’s contract in the closed session. This is what is called a deliberately constructed secretive meeting. It’s illegal. There are good reasons why.
Comment by Denise Lai — January 4, 2011 @ 8:56 am
Denise: I did read your blog posts and I find myself unconvinced. The Brown Act is, of course, up to interpretation, which is why the courts have to deal with disputes so frequently.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 4, 2011 @ 9:01 am
I guess everyone has a Sanjiv Handa in their town
Comment by E — January 4, 2011 @ 9:32 am
E: again with irrational comments because you and lauren like each other so you both must hate me? LOL. I have only ever spoken at city council meeting once. And I only brought attention to the harmful things no one knew about: the stroke protocol, and recent toxic and illicit crude oil transfer and spill. These are things that might have harmed you too if they were not changed or stopped. But Comment understood–I’ve hogged comments on this page!
LD: I understand. And there’s the issue of the city charter violations. Apparently there are precedents being cited to circumnavigate the city charter prohibitions for firing appointed staff immediately after taking office, but there’s only black and white when it come to the mayor’s action last week phoning Baines and firing her. That’s clearly prohibited in the city charter and it’s malfeasance. I’m glad Gilmore rescinded the firing, but all in all, we should all be very concerned and demanding better of her: there’s every reason to take the time to do things nicely and completely above board.
Comment by Denise Lai — January 4, 2011 @ 10:07 am
Denise: “Paid Administrative Leave” and dismissal are two entirely different animals. I believe that even Christina Baines has confirmed that she was asked to return to work after being placed on limited Paid Administrative Leave.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 4, 2011 @ 10:11 am
5, 15:
“The Brown Act and our City Charter are beloved and effective documents. Willful violations of them, particularly multiple in one week, are very, very serious.”
@Denise, if you want everything “completely above board,” what is your position on an elected official leaking quotes from inside a closed session meeting of the City Council? That is a flagrant violation of the Brown Act but I have not seen you object to that clearly illegal practice.
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 4, 2011 @ 10:22 am
Kate Quick, thanks for your post.
———————————–
Denise’s over the top outcries, as with those on ActionAlameda and Raising Hell for Good in general do not serve to foster a cooperative and collegial dialogue about City issues – they are sensationalist, often emotional, and seldom factual expositions of negativism. Once and awhile they get it right, but often facts are not allowed to get in their way. As with the “firings” “Stalinist Purge” pronouncements. The ICM and the City Attorney were not fired; they were put on administrative leave – one pending the end of a contract which required that she be noticed 90 days in advance if it were not to be continued, and one who confused everyone by taking a job elsewhere and not telling the City what she had done.
———————————–
Here are the multiple tweets as well
Comment by ChildishAttackDobot — January 4, 2011 @ 10:25 am
Denise Lai’s misunderstanding of the Sunshine ordinance is understandable – it is a long and dense document and it’s easy to miss details.
It is, however, a terrific effort based on the commitment of many dedicated members of the community, especially the STF members, over several months. The Sunshine ordinance should be approved – as written – by the City Council to bring the kind of open and accountable government we all need to the City of Alameda.
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 4, 2011 @ 10:26 am
2 more tweets
Comment by ChildishAttackDobot — January 4, 2011 @ 10:28 am
I was going to say something snarky about Spangler being a bozo too, but I’ll just refer him to #9 above, “Agreed: no one in a closed session should be quoted anywhere; just like no one in the media should be receiving preferential notice of the actions taken in the closed session by city councilmembers.”
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 10:30 am
Before someone drew my attention to the “Stalinist Purge” remarks
my own first impressions went back to “Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre”.
Just going to bed at night and waking up the next morning and everyone was gone.
Comment by frank — January 4, 2011 @ 10:42 am
re 20
You got me! I’m plotting to work in the best interest of Alameda and my neighbors. What’s your agenda? What’s Lauren’s? Marie’s?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 4, 2011 @ 10:51 am
Elliot,
on the one item per employee issue. Read the law. It clearly states that on items where listing the employee under discussion (such as performance review) you must list each employee who is being reviewed. This makes clear that it is not the intent of the law to require a separate agenda item for each employee.
Open government law protects employees in a myriad of ways. One of them is not requiring that negative information (or information that can be construed as negative) is often not required to be disclosed, as in the case of discipline procedures.
I’m fully supportive of the idea that listing out exactly which employee (or that more than one is being dealt with) on items such as last weeks. But in terms of legality, the council agenda was on point.
I think that it’s hilarious that many of the folks decrying last week’s action are the same folks who cheered Kurita’s firing under a much murkier agenda with not a peep about the process.
Comment by John Knox White — January 4, 2011 @ 11:40 am
JKW, Here is what I have for the relevant “safe harbor” language for agenda items. Do I have a bad copy or do we read the same thing and come to totally opposite conclusions?
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 11:46 am
As far as I can tell the only time the Brown Act refers to “employees” in the plural is when a class of benefits or a labor negotiation is referenced. It seems particularly to always refer to employee in the singular whenever appointment, review, or discipline, etc. is being referenced. Have I accessed a bad copy?
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 11:50 am
Anyone with a lick of sense knew the day after th election that the ICM and city attorney were gone. They both knew it when they took a political side on council issues.
If thier side won then they were O.K., if the other side won then they were done for. Why do you folks act so surprised at the outcome.
Comment by John piziali — January 4, 2011 @ 11:51 am
1. The idea of paying 3 months salary for someone to do nothing when we don’t have to seems wasteful.
2. I would like our public officials to follow the law. I’m sure that the ability of the public to be put on notice that Gallant was likely going to be removed that evening would not have changed a thing, but some may have wanted to put their thoughts on record about the wisdom or lack of wisdom of that course of action. They were denied that opportunity by (what I consider) a Brown Act violation.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 11:57 am
#22: That’s what came to mind for me as well – the “Tuesday Night Massacre”.
There’s no question that Brown Act violations have taken place here, as follows:
* No notice to the public that Ann Marie Gallant’s contract was under discussion, and therefore, no opportunity for the public to speak in advance of the closed session.
* No notice to AMG that her contract was under discussion (per Denise’s comments above), and no opportunity for her to appear and defend herself.
* No opportunity for AMG to request that the discussion be held in open session, which she has a right to do.
The Council has really stuck their foot in it this time — they’re off to a roaring start, one could say. It makes them look incompetent frankly, not to mention the ill-advised efforts to fire Christine Baines.
As to the timing of the notice (which everyone seems fixated on), if it need be said, timing doesn’t matter much when the content is wrong.
This controversy will get legal scrutiny sooner or later, and probably sooner, and then we’ll find out what the “facts” are. I I suspect that some of the smugger folks on this site will not be too happy.
Comment by dlm — January 4, 2011 @ 11:58 am
All this brouhaha about Brown Act violations, purge, conspiracy, etc. is the latest topic for some to get up in arms about. The actions of closed session for 12/28 were proper regarding advance notice and subject matter, despite what the self-appointed expert at Action Alameda says. And it was done on 12/28 because Gallant’s contract as interim city manager required a 90-day notice of non-renewal before her two-year contract reached the milestone of March 31, 2011, otherwise it would automatically renew. She wasn’t fired, she was interim and her contract wasn’t renewed.
Comment by Mike K. — January 4, 2011 @ 12:00 pm
Why are you so sure Mike K as to the proper notice? I had no idea that Gallant’s contract was on the agenda and I’m fairly obsessive about this kind of stuff. That’s the purpose of notice. I’ve been called a lot of not nice things in my time, but stupid isn’t one of them.
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
As someone has said in the discourse above, Gallant knew what was coming on November 3rd.
She was fond of saying “they can count to three,” when criticism came her way, and now it was her turn to count.
End of story.
Comment by Dave L. — January 4, 2011 @ 12:13 pm
#30: Did you know that Gallant’s contract was under discussion? Did anybody? Of course not, because it wasn’t noticed. The intent here was to rush this thru as a fait accompli, quite literally without letting anybody know.
This is the part where the Brown Act comes in.
Comment by dlm — January 4, 2011 @ 12:16 pm
Some of this discussion reminds me of the current brouhaha about mortgage fraud. I mean, after all, these people knew they owed the money on their house and weren’t paying it so why should we have to provide proper documentation to the Court?
Comment by elliott.gorelick — January 4, 2011 @ 12:20 pm
People: it doesn’t matter which side you’re on, or camp you’re in. No one is imagining that Gilmore would work with Gallant or Highsmith for the longterm. What we were imagining, however, it that Gilmore would be mature enough to tolerate working with them for 3 months, saving us the payroll of 6 doing the job of 3, protecting us from lawsuits she’s now exposed the city to, etc., etc. What we did expect is that she’d have prudence to do the transitions properly. She didn’t. It’s a mess.
Comment by Denise Lai — January 4, 2011 @ 12:28 pm
#10: Elliott – you made a reference to “precedents” above (from JKW), which you received. Could you please post them? Thanks for your comments in #25 also.
Comment by dlm — January 4, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
#35: “What we did expect is that she’d have prudence to do the transitions properly. She didn’t. It’s a mess.”
Yes, exactly. The city is now left short-handed at the highest levels too. AMG had a reputation as a very hard worker — who’s going to take up the slack?
Comment by dlm — January 4, 2011 @ 12:42 pm
Hearsay is not admissible evidence of fact, especially if it’s coming from someone whose head is in a bag.
The point of having a personnel closed session is for the governing body to have a chance to decide if there is something about an employee to have a meeting about. Sometimes the answer is no. If names were released before the meeting, reputations could be damaged. If the governing body decides that action should be taken, then at the close of the meeting a spokesperson announces what action was decided upon.
If the public had information from staff or council member about which employees were on the docket, then the system safeguards were breached.
If a member of the Council or other person that is a party to the workings of the Council has given you, Denise, information that happened in closed door session, the proper action for you is to quietly report the matter, in writing. This would make an efficient investigation possible. As it is, if it happened, you’ve blown it by turning town crier and sensationalizing it.
Mr Gorelick, FYI, personal attacks are not impressive, especially by an elected representative, plus they waste time.
I’ll be interested to see who all the players are and hear your presentations at tonight’s meeting. Can the TV pan the audience? Do wear name tags.
Comment by Li_ — January 4, 2011 @ 1:03 pm
It seems that suddenly everybody is a lawyer, Brown Act, City Charter, who broke the law and which laws were broken. What happen to just plain old honor and integrity; what Tam did was just plain wrong and sneaky; I’ve said before and I’ll say it again she showed if nothing else very poor judgment which is apparently contagious as it seems the whole council is now showing very poor judgment.
Let’s focus on the issue of was the ICM and City Attorney fired/released/purged, did the new council act against them in the first 90 days, any reasonable person would have to say “YES”. Again, maybe not illegal, who knows for sure, and by the way just because the DA does not prosecute it does not mean there was not a violation of the law.
I didn’t want to leave out the “oops” firing, honestly anybody else thinking Keystone Cops. Can you any of the pseudo/mock lawyers here describe hostile work environment, is it just for sexual harassment. Something, like that would certainty drive me to file a complaint, and take a stress leave.
Let’s touch on that matter for a moment. Was that action taken on advice or approval from supposed often referenced outside council? Where was the acting/interim City Attorney, he/she dropped the ball on that one. I’d be looking for new council.
Is it a Stalinist purge, a Nixon Massacre, or some such thing?
The question is will any good come of it? Not in the near term.
Will the actions of the council compel those affected to sue? Probably, heck people sue for much less.
Will it end up costing the city money? Certainly, the only question is how much.
Is the city functioning are our elected officials governing? I think not.
I’ll close with this. Elliott if the best argument or response you have to an opinion or statement is to call the person or liken them to a bozo then you my friend you have been beaten.
Disgusted Alamedian!
Comment by AlamedaDude — January 4, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
I guess expecting Gilmore and the council members to act like anything but typical politicians is pretty naive at this point. If they had done as the other Denise suggested and worked with AMG for a smooth transition, it would have gone a long way toward healing the rift that’s been tearing the town apart. Even better if they had found a way of throwing out the bathwater without the baby. Those of us who have lived here a while have seen lots of people try and fail (in some cases spectacularly) at the ICM role. To dispense with a highly qualified, competent and principled individual because of political spite and bad feelings is sadly the way things are done these days, but it’s not in the best interest of the city, especially at this critical juncture. The average Alamedan does not even know the names or have a clear idea of the roles these people play, let alone their petty conflicts. They will however feel the impact of their decisions. How someone excepts replacements better than what we had for these top spots to magically appear when we need them most, like King Arthur was supposed to do, is beyond me. Wrong scepter’d isle.
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 4, 2011 @ 2:11 pm
expects not excepts– oy vey!
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 4, 2011 @ 2:12 pm
Gallant always leaves with some settlement and only works for cities for a year or so. Do you really think the city of Alameda would be any different?
Look at the long-term trend here, sheesh.
Comment by Dave L. — January 4, 2011 @ 2:39 pm
Employee discipline of the type the Council has to agendize means there is a loss – demotion, cut in pay, cut in title, dismissal. Termination means loss of job. The Council gave the ICM NOTICE that her contract would not be renewed 90 days in the future and she is being paid in the meantime. The Council put Teresa Highsmith on paid administrative leave – she was not fired (i.e. disciplined) either. The ICM is well aware of the fact that the Council has to give her 90 days notice in order for her contract to expire March 31st. As an intelligent woman, one would think that she would watch for closed sessions regarding employee issues around the 90 day mark and make sure she knew what was up. She is not the CM, but the ICM, and as such is a contract employee. Duh!
Comment by Kate Quick — January 4, 2011 @ 3:05 pm
40. Denise, I have to say I entertained some idea about smooth transition scenario you describe but then I began to think about the reality of having somebody who knows they are on the outs having real power and what a mess that would be. Gallant for all her strengths seems to have real penchant for being in total control and wanting to run the show. How would that have played out if the current council had been more conciliatory and tried to make nice? It just wouldn’t have worked out.
I can’t imagine her being truly cooperative in helping usher in a replacement out of dedication and duty to Alameda over her own self interest, because no matter what good she has done for the City her obvious priority is old numero uno.
Comment by M.I. — January 4, 2011 @ 3:49 pm
Ah! We need no more evidence that this site has become dysfunctional than M.I.’s post. No one here seems to understand the basic reality, that both the ICM and the CA can just run their contracts out, and then collecting their massive retirement benefits. Both Highsmith and Gallant can do that, while on “Administrative Leave,” and give notice just in time to collect maximum benefits, as the teachers do!
The new City Council will either prove its smarts, or its ignorance, by what it does next. Will they hire someone capable of standing up to them, as both Highsmith and Gallant did, or just stooges? All those who supported the SunCal Slate will be waiting, I’m sure, with baited breath, to see how much integrity they display!
As for the rest of us, with such inflated home prices holding rather firm in Alameda, we can always move somewhere elese, as those who support Measure A threaten to do. What an exodus this could provide!
Comment by Dennis Green — January 4, 2011 @ 5:10 pm
45. “Bated” breath, not “baited” unless you’re accuding them of eating fish.
Comment by LindaonOtisSt — January 4, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
Sigh. Accusing, not accuding.
Comment by LindaonOtisSt — January 4, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
I was just getting ready to shut down for the night and get ready for the CC Meeting.
This has to do with Lauren Post # 6
reference to the quote leaked out in Action Alameda.
Checking back on ‘Old post’ Dec 30
“Onward and Upward”.
48.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
49.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
How does JKW get the scivy on possible legal action against the City discussed in Closed Session.
Comment by frank — January 4, 2011 @ 5:54 pm
Wow – It’s as though you’d never heard of the “loyal opposition,” which is a respected role – practically a job description – in Great Britain. Here’s my favorite definition of the term: “The term comes from Britain, where one party runs the government, and the other simply stands aside and critiques the policy, while respecting the legitimacy of those in power.”
That’s how I see Denise’s role here, and Dave Howard’s, and Elliot’s, and others. I think every democracy functions best with a loyal opposition, and every leader functions better when they are subject to feedback. I consider their voices vital to life in Alameda.
Comment by Liz Williams — January 4, 2011 @ 5:56 pm
Sorry I should have marked the quotes.
Comment by frank — January 4, 2011 @ 5:57 pm
For all the flap, once Marie came out and announced the results of the meeting, those results are public and can be shared with anyone at any time after the announcement. No foul here. She announced the result at 10:30 pm, he posted at 11:27 pm. The item of concern should be Action Alameda’s quote of what Marie purportedly said, which should never have been made public under the law.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 4, 2011 @ 6:10 pm
Kate I have no problem with the announcement that Gallant and Highsmith had been put on administrative leave. I do however feel like I said earlier a ‘heads up’ was conveyed to certain people while the rest of us were left in the dark.
My question is the specifics of the possible legal action pending
against the City Did Marie announce that also?
Is it part of a Public Record?
I just find this very suspect because one of the exemptions of the Brown Act is made for cities to discuss pending litagation in closed session so that they are not at a disadvantage.
I find it odd that someone not at the Closed Session seems to know the specifics. That would imply that someone told him about it.
So if Action Alameda quote is illegal so is this.
My biggest complaint is that people want things both ways.
Comment by frank — January 4, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
Frank (#48),
I read the publicly available meeting agendas on the City website once they are posted. Just like anyone else can.
Comment by John Knox White — January 4, 2011 @ 8:50 pm
Denise Shelton’s comment, above, about both “sides” graciously dealing with each other during the last 90 days of Gallant’s contract makes tremendous sense. The 3 Council members’ refusal to do so shows they lack maturity, let alone sophistication in the ways of the world.
In case anyone has forgotten, SunCal has sued the City of Alameda (meaning the taxpayers) in Federal court for $100 Million. Central to the City of Alameda (i.e. the taxpayers) defeating SunCal and its contingency fee lawyers in court is the cooperation of two key witnesses: Gallant and Highsmith. Inconsequential as witnesses: Gilmore and Bonta. As lawyers, each of them should have had the smarts to realize that without the cooperation of those two witnesses, it will be very difficult for the City’s counsel to defend the case. Hidden from the laymen is the fact that the Federal court cannot order the City of Alameda to change its charter, to rezone property, to sell property to SunCal. Those are traditional police powers reserved to the states and their agencies, under the 10th and 11th Amendments. What SunCal’s lawyers know, and what they have prayed for in their complaint, is CASH. Your cash. The taxpayers’ cash. In fact, in one recent self-promotional story in Southern California press, SunCal’s lawyer, Skip Miller, makes it relatively clear that he is representing SunCal on a contingency. Meaning he wants YOUR money, the taxpayers money. The reality is that if the case “settles”, let alone SunCal “winning” Mr. Miller wants to be paid with your cash. Can you imagine the blood curdling screams you will hear if city services are dramatically cut to pay Mr. Miller, let alone SunCal. That’s why I had hope, based on Mayor Gilmore’s comments, that she was through with SunCal. Gilmore, Bonta and Tam foolishly painted themselves in a corner by axing two of the city’s key witnesses, Gallant and Highsmith. Common courtesy, in the nature Denise described, would have been far wiser. In my view, Gilmore, Bonta and Tam have shown that they are bad business decision makers. (Yes, I know, none of them are business people.) Time may also show that they are bad politicians as well, because the writing of a huge check by the City of Alameda, to pay Skip Miller’s attorneys fees, will be the end of their political careers.
Comment by BigAl — January 4, 2011 @ 10:57 pm
Many critics of the Council’s ICM contract non-renewal on December 28 spoke tonight here at the City Council meeting. They were uniformly angry: some were downright rude and some were misinformed, IMHO.
(One of them whispered a seven-letter expletive at me on his way out. It was not a word I would use when addressing the Council or anyone else in polite company. So much for working for the common good and reconciliation..)
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 4, 2011 @ 11:24 pm
After tonight’s City Council meeting I asked some city officials if they would be willing to provide additional information on the December 28 meeting regarding the alleged Brown Act or Charter violations
that over a dozen citizens had mentioned earlier in the meeting.
Here is a paraphrased version of their responses:
“We would love to have responded ourselves to the questions posed on the blogs but we cannot:
1) it is a personnel matter. Those are always confidential and it is illegal for us to talk about them
publicly.
2) Discussing the legal aspects of our actions might affect future litigation and we do not want to give anything away to the other side.”
Given the post-employment litigation history of our former Interim City Manager, I cannot blame them for their responses, especially #2….
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 5, 2011 @ 12:40 am