Hey, did everyone know that John Russo has a Wikipedia page? Yeah, I didn’t know that he did either and I’m not sure how I missed that in my searches of him. Personally, I enjoyed the part about Seat Belt Sting. Someone should probably gently remind him of the 25 mph speed limit in Alameda, since the cops here are pretty good at enforcing.
So last night at the City Council, the report out was…anti-climatic. No formal announcement yet, at least nothing from last night and that was after a one hour long closed session. At this point, I’m just blogging on the assumption that John Russo is the City Manager of choice.
In addition to being a controversial choice in Alameda — but seriously whether to go right or left in Trader Joes is a controversial decision in Alameda — John Russo’s move to Alameda will cause some waves in Oakland as well. Given the John Russo is an elected official, the Oakland City Council will get to decide who fills in for John Russo once he leaves. This is a big deal considering that John Russo has been at the forefront of some fairly controversial (there’s that word again) issues like the Gang Injunctions and punting on representing the City of Oakland on their Medical Marijuana legislation.
Well, you can say one thing for John Russo, he certainly is going to bring a lot of attention to Alameda. Whether that is a good or bad thing I haven’t decided yet. But what I can project is that he will probably generate a lot of blogging worthy posts for the future.
As an aside, while I am certainly not jumping up and down about John Russo as our next City Manager, I can’t deny that this will be an interesting, to borrow a term from Tony Daysog, “experiment” for Alameda. I know I had concerns about John Russo being too political for Alameda and not having enough hands-on experience as a City Manager, but if he throws into being Alameda’s City Manager all his smarts and experience and tenacity, then maybe we are in for a brilliant new era.
I imagine that one of the main questions from all the panels — and from the City Council themselves — had to do with John Russo’s political aspirations and whether this would just end up being a rest stop for an Assembly run or something bigger and better. Whatever response he has given, and I imagine that this will be a question he will be asked again and again, it has seemed to appease those who have asked the question previously.
And let’s not forget that our new City Manager will be facing a doozy of a time dealing with Alameda’s outstanding issues: Alameda Point, post-retirement benefits for City employees and the negotiation process that was derailed, lawsuits from all fronts, the continuing battle of balancing the budget, and now a $6 + million budget shortfall for future budgets – you do have to give credit to anyone who willingly walks into what will be a shitstorm of issue after issue.
But I’m still going to express my slight bitterness over David Brandt not being selected even as I remain hopeful that this choice that the City Council has made will turn out to be brilliant.
Michelle did a great job of reporting this first … that is what good journalism is about, not mud-slinging as we know it around here.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/30/BAAI1ILQF4.DTL
Comment by Jakster M — March 30, 2011 @ 7:47 am
1. you realize the URL you posted is the Chronicle and not Michele Ellson, right?
Lauren’s BLOG is a BLOG, which does not purport to report news, as per The Island. What’s so difficult about that concept? If the supposed mud slinging is such a problem, why read it?
I’m not even curious what goes on at Action Alameda, and leave it to others to sift through the more salient propaganda to save my having to increase my blood pressure by reading it myself.
Lauren’s anonymous detractors sometimes remind me of the vultures who came each day to pick at Prometheus’ liver.
Comment by M.I. — March 30, 2011 @ 8:26 am
2
Amen to that, Mark.
Comment by Linda Hudson — March 30, 2011 @ 8:41 am
Lauren, thanks for bringing fire to Alameda. David Howard is Hermes wannabe.
Comment by M.I. — March 30, 2011 @ 8:45 am
Well I got something different out of the meeting last night. Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer and Kevin Kearney City Auditor both got up and for not the first time explained to the council just how bad a situation financially we are in as a city. What troubles me more than anything about what they had to say was the fact that they were saying it two years ago to the same four people on this council. Now we are getting very close to bankruptcy and they both said that this council should have already started on this problem. My word to the council is that I will support them 100% when they start making those cuts, and I know it will it will be very painful.
Its worth going on the City of Alameda home page and looking up last nights meeting to hear what these two men had to say.
Comment by John P. — March 30, 2011 @ 9:27 am
4: Mark, I would say that David Howard and some of his cohorts are rather accomplished followers of Hermes. if one includes the Greek god’s less savory characteristics…
Comment by Jon Spangler — March 30, 2011 @ 9:31 am
For once, I agree w/Pisiali(5)! Hrs 2-3 of 3/29/11 council mtg should be required watching for all Alamedans. Especially Pollyannas like Spangler, who waste time in city meetings praising the status quo, distracting all from real BIG problems that the parties must stay focused on! Jon, why don’t you give up public speaking for Lent? Only 3 more weeks.
Comment by notmayberry — March 30, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
Prometheus and garden variety vultures
Comment by Jack Richard — March 30, 2011 @ 12:23 pm
Thank goodness we have a new CM coming in, the last City leadership and some current members failed on this quest to win the Google prize, congrats Kansas City:
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/google-picks-kansas-city-ultra-high-speed-broadband-network/2011-03-30
Comment by DRM — March 30, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
John think back to that council that took no action. Marie and Lena were pretty much sidelined by the icm, and the bloc of three at that time was led by Beverly Johnson. I am sure that this council will move forward selectively to deal with this critical issue. We are lucky to have this kind of intelligence tackling this problem
Comment by barbara kahn — March 30, 2011 @ 3:54 pm
#10, exactly, I thought according to the Action Alamedans that the ICM, former CC block and Highsmith were proactive and had done the tough things to solve our budget issues? I’m shocked that the former school teacher turned Interim Finance Director and then ICM let things deteriote so rapidly. Kind of eviscerates her arguments in her claim as to what a great job she was doing.
Comment by DRM — March 30, 2011 @ 4:37 pm
I smell a swell new parcel tax.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 30, 2011 @ 5:21 pm
Let’s see: Russo contributes to the campaigns of Tam, Bonta, and Gilmore. Now they choose him as City Manager. I can’t wait to see what they do for their other major benefactors, SunCal and the public safety unions.
Comment by Steve Rogers — March 30, 2011 @ 8:27 pm
I just watched last night’s video. Wow! Kevin Kennedy starts at about 1 hr 42 minutes in. Indeed it should be mandatory viewing for all Alamedans. Makes me feel bad about even pressing about our [doomed] swimming pools.
Comment by Jack B. — March 30, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
Yes, the Kevins are sounding like broken records. They have been saying the same thing for the last 5 years. Listening them, the City closed a fire station, laid off public safety, and turned off the lights at the tennis courts.
Sounds like we need to stop the subsidies to PSBA, Chamber, Museum, and look at close the Meyers House, and the Golf Complex. (Mastick actually makes money for the city).
Comment by Chuck — March 30, 2011 @ 9:15 pm
12. I doubt another tax could pass even for safety services. I have always been bugged that school taxes are hell to pass, even with a seniors exemption, yet the hospital tax passed and at the time was nearly triple the amount of any school tax to that date.
Regardless of the value of health services to a well rounded community as a general principle, I’ve never been satisfied that over all we get enough bang for our buck on the hospital. Post quake is the one time I can imagine the hospital being most essential, if it’s infrastructure were to survive, but that is a bit like the earthquake insurance we paid on our home for 20 years until the terms became so terrible and the possible coverage in a quake so limited that we canceled it. I wonder how the cost of auxiliary salt water fire pumps and military style emergency pontoon bridges would compare and serve us by comparison?
Imagine if as in the recall of Gray Davis where he was tossed and the Terminator was elected on one ballot, that the health district was dissolved and the $300 was put toward the general fund for a ten year period, all on the same ballot.
Comment by M.I. — March 30, 2011 @ 9:35 pm
Here’s what Kevin Kennedy had to say about Ann Marie Gallant:
“Officially Speaking: Kevin Kennedy responds
Question 5 — Walter_Bailey asks: Describe AM Gallant’s influence on city’s fiscal health. Positive or negative? Most importantly, how & why?
Answer: I want to address the question of Interim City Manager Ann-Marie Gallant’s influence on the City’s fiscal health. Fiscal health is what makes everything the City does possible. We can debate all we want about what color to paint the living room and what appliances to put in the kitchen, but if we can’t pay the mortgage it doesn’t matter much.
Politicians will probably not be the source of fiscal discipline (see question #3 above). I hope I’m wrong about this, I’d like to be wrong about this, but time will tell.
If we have a chance of preserving the City we love, we need a strong City manager, someone who isn’t afraid to stand up and make the tough calls that don’t win popularity contests but keep the City solvent.
Our prior City Manager wasn’t this type of person, and we burned through nearly all of our reserves due to inaction in adjusting to economic reality. Gallant has worked diligently and effectively in beginning the process of getting the City on a sustainable path: cutting personnel, consolidating departments, streamlining delivery of services. I get the feeling she doesn’t mind putting her moral duty above making friends, and that’s fine with me.
We need the City Manager to do what’s right, they are the CEO of the organization and sometimes the decisions need to be difficult.
If the reward for doing what you know needs to be done is to be replaced, that sends one heck of a bad message to future City Managers.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inalameda/detail?entry_id=77836#ixzz1I9FvLcNh
Comment by dlm — March 30, 2011 @ 9:46 pm
Mr. Kennedy seems to speaking out of both orifices. If “Gallant has worked diligently and effectively in beginning the process of getting the City on a sustainable path: cutting personnel, consolidating departments, streamlining delivery of services” why does he say we are now on the brink of bankruptcy? Gallant is still collecting her $289K salary and suing for more.
Comment by Stephen — March 30, 2011 @ 9:57 pm
Mark, post 16. maybe you know or someone else does. How would the citizens go about de solving the Hospital district, As far as I can tell it would have to be voted on by the elected board itself to be sun setted. Which would mean getting a majority of board members to vote to retire itself.
I bet Elliot Gorlick would know.
Comment by John P. — March 30, 2011 @ 10:28 pm
16, 19: Dissolving the health care district would do nothing to theCity’s finances, as they are entirely separate entities. Apples and oranges, as they say.
And the hospital board – even with Board Member Gorelick being disruptive by trying to shut it down singlehandedly – has made significant progress over recent years in bringing fiscal discipline and new services to the hospital.
I look for continuing diligence and reasonable actions by the City Council as soon as we have our new CM in place and some of the personnel controversies diminish. And progress in dealing with the unions, etc., will be far more likely with a new CM and under this City Council because the animosity is almost gone.
Comment by Jon Spangler — March 31, 2011 @ 9:22 am
Jon, I’m not concerned about the cities finances in this case, I’m bothered by the fact that the Hospital dist. costs each home owner about $300.00 per year and I would much rather have that $300.00 go to the school dist. 67 years and I have never been treated in that hospital, even in an emergency I was taken by ambulance to Kaiser Oakland.
I’m concerned about the reinforcement costs that will be coming up here in a few years, I think the figure is quite high. I’m concerned that the debt for that will also be carried by the taxpayers also.
Comment by John P. — March 31, 2011 @ 10:37 am
Jon, money is money and the $300 could go anywhere we direct it including staying in our bank accounts, or to the general fund. I thought another ballot measure is the only way to dissolve the district. People we all know have posted here how the hospital “saved their life” and I got one of those emails this a.m. about post 16. If it were possible to know, I’m curious how many people who are stabilized at Alameda Hospital would not have made it had they taken the longer trip to Highland.
The response time on the front end in this town is rapid and if patients can be treated at Alameda Hospital they are in emergency very rapidly. I don’t dispute that is a good thing. But I think I am correct that the front end of the emergency response process is most critical. Part of what is being discussed for cuts is the budget on the response end which if you are a Kaiser patient or have an emergency which Alameda Hospital can’t handle is all that matters.
I have real respect for people in medicine, my mom was a nurse. There are good jobs at Alameda Hospital being performed by professionals and people receiving important services. But stepping back and being more clinical in dissecting the pros and cons of the district it is sometimes difficult for me to justify it.
Comment by M.I. — March 31, 2011 @ 11:20 am