Yesterday, John Knox White posted on In Alameda a letter from Acting City Attorney Donna Mooney that was sent to various Alameda residents who have been upset about what took place at the City Council’s Special Meeting on December 28th.
Of course, what hasn’t helped has been the Alameda Sun’s “news” analysis on the subject which appears to have been written before the actual meetings took place and therefore largely analyzed the issue in a complete vacuum. Also the “news analysis” opted to be light on actual news and heavy on analysis which bordered on wild conjecture. But let’s put that to the side for now.
So there’s a group of folks who understand the plain language of the Brown Act and City Charter so well that they don’t need no stinkin’ lawyers to tell them what the legal interpretation of the plain language actually is. In fact one person opined that since the City Charter was written in the “early 1900s” and , wait a second, let me just repost what was written since my nutshelling simply won’t do it proper justice:
So first of all the City Charter was written in the 1930s. While technically it is earlier 1900s, saying “early 1900s” makes it sound as though people were sitting around in mud huts and hunting bison out on the plains. Yes, relative to today, perhaps the populace wasn’t as educated, but illiteracy rates weren’t staggeringly high like the late 1800s. Anyway, when I first read this all I could think about was that someone should point out that the U.S. Constitution was written in the late 1700s (aka more illiterate people!) and to this day still has masses of lawyers trying to sort out the legal intent of the fairly simple language used in the document. But whatev.
Anyway, this letter from Acting City Attorney Donna Mooney says essentially what other folks have been trying to say for ages now. Will this be enough to satisfy them? Probably not. It appears the latest thing to be outraged about is the City Council’s outside counsel Edward Kreisberg saying “mid-December” as when he was retained by the City Council. Apparently instead of picking on Edward Kreisberg because he thinks that December 28 is “mid” December (much like others characterize the 1930s as the “early 1900s”) they have decided that there must be something much more nefarious going on with regard to this “mid December” thing.
Also let me just point out for those not listening when the Meyers Nave guy spoke. The City already has an existing contract with Meyers Nave, like it used to have with Colantuono & Levin, and a bunch of other law firms. The whole City Council, every single one of them, voted to use Meyers and Nave for this specific issue.
So to nutshell the Acting City Attorney’s letter: move along there’s nothing to see here.
And in a funny anecdote, someone sent this to the In Alameda email address yesterday, but apparently a Wikipedia user updated the information about Alameda, CA and posted that the Mayor of Alameda is one “Ann Marie Gilmore.”
And, of course since I am naturally curious I went to see who changed it, turns out, it’s just an IP address, but when I compared it to my own commenters, turns out one of you guys — you know who you are! — was the culprit. Intentional or big Freudian slip. You decide.
Has anyone talked to Terry Francke of Californians Aware about the City Council’s December 28 actions? I would be really interested to hear what he has to say about the Brown Act as it applied to the December 28 personnel actions. (What would the “opposition” say if he supported Mooney and Meyers Nave?)
“Love” the “Freudian slip” about our new mayor. I hope the poster wi correct her/his work ASAP….
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 28, 2011 @ 8:08 am
dear jon spangler
you are jack ass
Comment by j cloren — January 28, 2011 @ 8:41 am
dear jon
I meant to say a big jack ass
Comment by j cloren — January 28, 2011 @ 8:42 am
dear j cloren
not civil. not helpful. try to offer something meaningful.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 28, 2011 @ 9:18 am
dear kate
try being transparent sometime
Comment by j cloren — January 28, 2011 @ 9:50 am
There was an article in last weeks New Yorker on the US Constitution that explored among other issues the history and interpretation of the US Constitution and the ignorance and lack of understanding of the Tea Partiers and associates of the document. There is a remarkable congruence between waving the Constitution as a support for their positions and the waving of the charter to support the issue of the day.
Comment by barbara kahn — January 28, 2011 @ 9:54 am
6. Action Alameda folks are the local teahadists!
Comment by alameda — January 28, 2011 @ 10:25 am
gilmore is palin
Comment by j cloren — January 28, 2011 @ 11:47 am
6.
Note the remarkable congruence between tea partiers interpretation and recently elected members of congress interpretation of the constitution. How did the Yorker interpret that?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
6. again
There was a court decision just released that explored the history and interpretation of the California Constitution and the ignorance and lack of understanding of the Progressives and associates of the document. There is a remarkable congruence between waving the California Constitution as a support for their positions and the raising of lawsuits to support the issue of the day. Fortunately Brick went through that fantasy.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2011 @ 2:44 pm
6 thrice
The article in the N Yorker by Jill Lepore (I assume it’s this one Ms. Kahn is refering to) is an interesting read…until she gets bogged down into her 2nd amendment analysis.
But what would one expect from a Harvard History Professor.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
2., 3. Joe, you heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black?
Gilmore as Palin is pretty lame too. She’s not a Michele Bachman either. Even if you somehow managed to substantiate a charter violation, Marie is still too circumspect and sparing with words to be compared to either of those vapid loud mouths, but putting gender aside, I’d say David Howard and Palin have gross manipulation of hyperbolic rhetoric in common, and rabid followers.
Comment by M.I. — January 28, 2011 @ 4:55 pm
couldn’t resist–Marie has gone from Stalin to Palin, and I bet she can’t see Russia from her house.
Comment by barbara kahn — January 28, 2011 @ 5:26 pm
12 So Jon’s a kettle of color?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2011 @ 5:57 pm
13
How much?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2011 @ 6:42 pm
12
So, your argument is that a violation of law (a charter violation) pales in comparison to people violating your idea of “gross manipulation of hyperbolic rhetoric”… and you call others “rabid”?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 28, 2011 @ 7:22 pm
Riddle me this, how many lawyers will it take to convince the unconvincable that there was NO VIOLATION of the charter, the Brown Act or the state law?
We several attorney with good standing with the California Bar: a mayor who is an attorney from Boalt Law School; we have a vice-mayor that is a Deputy City Attorney for San Francisco and a Yale Law School Graduate; we have 90 attorneys at the Meyers Nave Law firm, we have an acting City Attorney that works for Terri Highsmith — who all say the Council acting appropriately.
Comment by Chuck — January 28, 2011 @ 9:54 pm
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 28, 2011 @ 11:18 pm
d’oh.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 28, 2011 @ 11:19 pm
14: Jack, the last time I checked I was still a garden-varirety Caucasian (mostly German with some English and Scottish thrown in). No black (African-American,that is) in the mix, AFAIK. Not that I’d have a problem with that, but it’s not in the genealogy.
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 29, 2011 @ 2:19 am
20
This gets complicated, Jon.
In my #14 I was responding to M.I. in #12 who commented on j. cloren’s #2 and 3 (M.I. must know him since he called him “Joe”). j. cloren, first called you a jack ass in #2 then added “big” in #3, by saying he meant to say are a “big jack ass”. Now it gets complicated.
I have nothing against jackasses or even big jackasses but j. cloren spells jackass as two separate words so I’m not sure he’s referring to a four legged animal in his description of you. Perhaps he thinks, in this case, jack is short for Jon (John Kennedy was frequently called Jack, as I recall. Even I have my name, “Jack”, is spelled on my high school diploma, “John” even though it’s “Jack” on my birth certificate. My name change in spelling on the HS Diploma, I concluded, was because it was a Catholic HS and they don’t do “Jack”. Has to be a saint’s name, and Jack ain’t no saint.)
The trouble with that hypothesis is that I don’t see how “Jack” can be short for “Jon”, maybe vice versa (short for John either for that matter since each name has four letters, one syllable). So that leaves the first of the two word epithet j. cloren chose as somewhat of a mystery. The second word “ass” is more straightforward. One can understand someone calling someone else an “ass” even “asshole” is such common a vulgar slang word as not to ruffle too many feathers of the descriptive recipient.
So the reader of #2 abd 3 is left in somewhat a puzzled state. As I’m sure Ms. Kate demonstrated in her #4 to dear j. cloren when she asks him to offer something meaningful. One wonders if “asshole” would have satisfied her meaningfulness.
That takes us back to M.I. and his #12 question directed at “2., 3. Joe”. One must ask, who is Joe? M.I. must know but he shed no light on the connection between j. cloren and “Joe” to other readers, except through a riddle. “2., 3. Joe, you heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black?”
I gleaned from the riddle that the pot he’s referring to must be a black pot and the kettle he’s referring to must also be black and that pot is Joe (aka apparently, j. cloren) and that kettle is jon spangler. So that’s why, in my #14 if M.I. was implying jon spangler is a kettle of color. Perhaps you should pass your garden variety color on to M.I.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 29, 2011 @ 11:11 am
Re 21
I hate to do this but I made a couple of errors in my #21, one of which I’d like to correct. Instead of wondering if Ms Kate’s meaningfulness would have been sated by j. cloren’s use of the word “asshole” I should have said “jackass” since I’m the one that brought “asshole” up, not j. cloren. My apologies.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 29, 2011 @ 12:10 pm
Pots and kettles… How quickly everyone forgot how Marie Gilmore was one of the FOUR City Councilmembers that authorized the investigation into Lena Tam… http://www.scribd.com/doc/33994324/Alameda-Council-Member-Lena-Tam-Press-Release
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 29, 2011 @ 1:21 pm
No councilmembers authorized the investigation.
It was already 6 weeks old when the council was alerted. The four council members authorized the public release of letters that had been sent by staff to the DA six weeks prior. The press release you link to says nothing about the council authorizing these actions.
In fact, the council was consistently (and erroneously) told that they had no say in the matter.
Comment by John Knox White — January 29, 2011 @ 4:37 pm
How quickly everyone forgot how Marie Gilmore was one of the FOUR City Councilmembers that authorized release of the investigation into Lena Tam… http://www.scribd.com/doc/33994324/Alameda-Council-Member-Lena-Tam-Press-Release
Comment by Jack Richard — January 29, 2011 @ 5:07 pm
Jack – not quite sure if you’re meaning to be snide or not; sorry if my assuming you are is wrong.
I think Marie did the right thing in voting to release those letters. At the time I read her actions/statements to say that she was skeptical of the merit of the investigation, but that she favored a transparent, fact based vetting of the matter so that Alamedans could be confident in the outcome no matter what the result.
That is the kind of leadership Alamedans should be looking for and is why I support her as mayor. I trust that she will put our interests ahead of any short term gain she will get from pandering to this or that group.
Comment by david burton — January 29, 2011 @ 8:00 pm
When was John made the spokesperson of the City of Alameda? The same meeting where Meyers Nave was rammed down the City’s throat?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 30, 2011 @ 12:30 am
26
No I wasn’t meaning to be snide. You might ask the same question of JKW, in his #24.
JKW seemed to make a big deal that two simple words were left out of Adam’s comment. In my opinion JKW is wrong when he says “No council members authorized the investigation”. As the linked press release clearly states, the ICM is the controlling entity authorizing investigation of the matter. So, in fact, every one of the Council members authorized the investigation because the Charter delegate’s investigational authority to the City Manager in matters like this and the Council members’ authority is bound by the City Charter.
Gilmore’s transparency, motives and leadership are beside the point in this matter, as are the rest of the Council members’ …except for attempts to score political points with some of the electorate.
So barbara kahn (#6 above) may not like the rule of law, “waving the Constitution as a support for their positions and the waving of the charter to support the issue of the day”, but that’s the way it is.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 30, 2011 @ 11:06 am
ignorance and lack of understanding
Comment by barbara kahn — January 30, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
28. does it make no difference that the vote was to authorize release of information from an investigation which was already underway? A NO vote from Gilmore would have been a vote to keep the information from the public. Imagine the accusations that would have invited, like protecting Lena. With all the ready accusers it’s sort of lose/lose for somebody in Marie’s position no matter what they do.
This scenario is so obviously not the same as being consulted about allegations and then authorizing an investigation.
One might ask any number of questions about any number of posts, but it is hard to read anything into #24 which smacks of snide. it smacks of obvious facts.
21. you sometimes remind me of a dog chasing it’s own tail. About 12.,I don’t have the vaguest notion who “J.Cloren” is. maybe “Joyce”. My reference was generic use of Joe, like Joe Blow, any schmuck whose accusation itself makes them exactly that which they accuse another. hey, guess what? I’m being snide!
27. hyperbolic language like “rammed down the City’s throat” does not make it true, even if repeating such mantra’s keeps the blood throbbing in your temples. In dog analogies, you are the Action Alameda yap dog which snaps at people’s ankles and causes them to reflexively want to kick you (figuratively of course).
Comment by M.I. — January 30, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
Do you have a better description of the courtship and introduction of Meyers Nave into the culture of Alameda, Mark? Sorry if reminders of the truth jerks your collar out of your happy place you’d drifted off to. I know you’d rather roll over and let Lauren scratch your tummy…
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 30, 2011 @ 4:29 pm
Mark, I like that “action Alameda yap dog” fits him well.
Comment by John piziali — January 30, 2011 @ 5:48 pm
30 re my 21
I love your analogy…dog chasing it’s tail…that’s exactly what this particular thread is. Dog yapping, scratching tummies, jerking collars, love it.
30 re my 28 etc
Oh my, ‘imagine the accusations’, poor poor Marie. Mark,
david burton asked if I was being snide by my addition of two simple words to Adam’s #24. The answer was no.
I guess barbara’s 29 was premonition of your 30…’ignorance and misunderstanding’.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 30, 2011 @ 6:32 pm
Jack,
Just to clarify, your point is that while the City Council never took action to have the City Manager investigate (and send to the DA) something she thought was wrong, since the Charter gives her the duty to investigate, the City Council approved it? Despite the fact that they had no idea it was happening?
I’m unclear under what definition this would support a statement that Marie Gilmore and three other council people were responsible for the actions they knew nothing about?
Comment by John Knox White — January 31, 2011 @ 7:08 am
John,
I know the City Manager/City Council relationship is not a military relationship but the situation does have similarities. The guiding document in the case of the City is the Charter (with all due respect to barbara kahn). In the military they have something called the chain of command, which stipulates the entity having cognizance and authority over a mission’s completion has who the intrinsic support of all other elements in the chain.
My point was that the City Manager was the cognizant entity in this matter (given that authority by the City Charter) and the City Council, though perhaps outside the decision loop, still had the obligation to uphold the Charter and thus the investigation. And was responsible for the successful completion of the mission. In the military if someone lower in the chain of command does not support the command decision, that person may suffer the consequence of being removed from the chain. Of course that doesn’t happen in the civilian arena. The civilians simply remove the decision maker.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 31, 2011 @ 9:19 am
Which is a very long-winded way of saying “the city council was not involved in the decision.” The public record is clear that multiple council people said “it’s time to stop” and staff said “no.”
So a statement that “Marie Gilmore was one of the FOUR City Councilmembers that authorized the investigation…” is a false statement. No council members “authorized the investigation.”
And just to understand, when Lynndie England was found guilty of crimes at Abu Ghraib, was the entire chain of command also found such? Or was it determined that while a command structure, as you describe above, existed, these were the actions of a few rogue actors?
Or is this not an apples to apples comparison? (serious, non-snarky question)
Comment by John Knox White — January 31, 2011 @ 11:06 am