Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 12, 2011

The professional

Filed under: Alameda — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

So, as I started tracking discussion around Alameda Hospital (yeah, yeah…) I started wondering how Alameda Hospital staff felt about an elected Boardmember essentially calling the quality of service at Alameda Hospital “substandard.”   I mean, it’s one thing for a citizen with an ax to grind to say that the Hospital sucks, but it reaches a whole other level when a Boardmember does it.

Because, regardless how the critique is caveated by Boardmember Elliott Gorelick that he wasn’t talking about anyone or any service in particular, I imagine that it’s fairly hard to not take it personally when your professional abilities are being questioned and openly declared as not as good.   I mean, who wants to be told by someone who is speaking in generalities that you are doing a shitty job at your job?

And given that no one has written letters to the editor or developed a blog to say how offended they were by Elliott Gorelick’s statements, I just figured that either (a) no one was paying attention or (b) no one cared.   Turns out, both were wrong.   At Monday night’s Hospital Board meeting some Alameda Hospital doctors and nurses came out to express just how not cool they were with Elliott Gorelick’s statements about the quality of care at Alameda Hospital.

The excerpted video is here, it’s longish:

A few transcribed excerpts, from one doctor

Everyone in this room that’s involved with Alameda Hospital has a fiduciary responsibility to act on maintaining the quality of Alameda Hospital.  To that end, particularly the Board members, if there is specific information that would improve the care then the medical staff would like to know.

This doctor then went on to present two separate reports, one that Elliott Gorelick has been touting as his evidence that small hospitals were inferior and one that pointed out almost the opposite.

Another doctor, after rattling off his resume and host of medical experience said:

The quality of care that the medical staff gives is superlative, if not better than many of the other hospitals that I’ve attended…if I were sick I would have no compunction about being attended to here, not only because of the quality of the medical staff, but the employees and the atmosphere of and the quality of care  of Alameda Hospital.

And the nurses were represented last night when one came to say:

I am very offended by Mr. Gorelick’s disparaging remarks about what I see — from the nursing perspective because we’ve heard from the medical perspective —  but from the nursing perspective I have a lot of respect for my colleagues and know that for many people who work at many different hospitals the standard of care here is excellent.   And the reason why I chose this place and desire to stay here and give it my utmost and my very best is that I always see that the patients come first, which is not always true at the larger institutional hospitals that I’ve been at.

The next doctor didn’t mince too many words which she directed at Elliott Gorelick:

Your presence and perspective are sour and malignant.  As it grows old and incapable of making its hatred effective.

And the last doctor trying to explain that the experience of the staff at Alameda Hospital is not just limited to Alameda Hospital:

To try to just pigeonhole us into some category that it may appear to you that we don’t have a life outside of here [Alameda Hospital] and this is all the we do, we are at other facilities, we interact with much larger medical staff than this, we interact with much larger budgets than this…

Finally, this letter was also read into the record was submitted by the Emergency Room doctors, excerpt although there are some pretty strongly worded language in there as well:

The implication both stated and implied is that the physicians who provide care to this community operate in a vacuum unaware or negligent of standards of care prevalent in the community at large. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let’s just say, I think Elliott Gorelick is going to be unable to continue waving reports as “fact-based” argument without severe pushback from the staff who view his attempts of proving up Alameda Hospital’s inferiority as assaults on their professionalism.

About these ads

59 Comments

  1. Sounds like a description of how people feel about your blog, Lauren.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 12, 2011 @ 8:12 am

  2. Lauren, you’re right on the money! His responsibility as a Board member is to ensure the hospital provides excellent care and is certainly not to denigrate the staff nor to attempt to shut it down. As a member of the audience during the meeting, Mr. Gorelick sat there with a stupid grin on his face, much like a teenager when confronted with his wrongdoing and graceless remarks. BTW, Adam speaks only for himself, not for “people.”

    Comment by Richard Hausman — August 12, 2011 @ 10:05 am

  3. I appreciated hearing the perspectives of the medical professionals who actually deliver the services at Alameda Hospital.

    If I had been unjustly accused of unprofessional conduct or of delivering substandard care, I would be mad at a critic who selectively cited inappropriate medical journal articles, too. (Even I can see that the comparison of Alameda Hospital to small rural hospitals is an inappropriate one.)

    Comment by Jon Spangler — August 12, 2011 @ 10:20 am

  4. 2. Agree with you on Adam Gillitt; he has no people skills and needs to stick with his “day job” working with machines, hopefully he’s much better at that.

    Comment by Anthony Bologna Jr. — August 12, 2011 @ 10:37 am

  5. Bolongna you have it upside down. He has no skills fighting a “Political Machine.”

    “political machine” as, “in U.S. politics, a party organization, headed by a single boss or small autocratic group, that commands enough votes to maintain political and administrative control of a city, county, or state.”[3] William Safire, in his Safire’s Political Dictionary, defines “machine politics” as “the election of officials and the passage of legislation through the power of an organization created for political action.”

    Comment by John — August 12, 2011 @ 10:52 am

  6. He has no skills fighting a “Political Machine.”

    ….but he’ll go 15 rounds with little old ladies any day!

    Comment by Ba-dum-bum — August 12, 2011 @ 11:00 am

  7. Tony Baloney. That’s actually clever for a Dobot.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — August 12, 2011 @ 11:04 am

  8. And cleveland’s lovely…and, and we like it…

    Comment by Jack Richard — August 12, 2011 @ 12:29 pm

  9. Thank you for the video, LDo. You never know what you’ll uncover in a small island town. When someone represents themselves as an MD/DO, the 1st thing you should always do is look them up on the Calif Med Bd Website http://www.medbd.ca.gov/lookup.html To see if they’re licensed to practice here. Cuz if they’re not, there’s a problem. Steve Lowery, Joe Marzouk, Carol Gerdes, & James Yeh all check out. But the hospitalist, Raymond Yeh, does not seem to be a licensed California physician.
    This video shows that things are even worse than we suspected. Its obvious that not a single doctor represented on this video understands ANYTHING about Calif Health Care Districts! Especially the letter from the Medical staff who weren’t there, who apparently don’t even know who on the Board is a doctor (addresed to “Dr. Battani”) & who isn’t. The letter from “Calif ER MDs” showed they know absolutely nothing about the purpose of the Alameda Healthcare District Board, which is to administer the PARCEL TAX IT WAS ESTABLISHED TO COLLECT according to the language of the ballot measure. Mr. Gorelick is on the Board to represent the best interests of Alameda Taxpayers, which may include closing the hospital if the premises prove to be a greater threat to public safety than an asset to the community, NOT to protect the egos & salaries of the MD/DOs & RNs who work there! Alameda Hospital is not their personal fiefdom, its a public trust. Hospital privileges are just that–privileges! Not entitlements. Perhaps some of you should forfeit yours. Most remarkable is the appallingly UNPROFESSONAL behavior of Carol Gerdes, MD, whose sputtering emotional invective toward an elected Board member whose name she could not even pronounce (she said “gorezlik”) probably warrants a complaint to the Medical Board.
    It seems the hidden agenda of this attack on Mr. Gorelick by this space (there always is one–no pure motives here) is to divert our attention from the very ominous development ushered in by the Board majority @the last few meetings= a new $900K line of credit from the Bank of Alameda, using our parcel taxes as surety for, that will fund NOT seismic retrofit of the hospital, but the Wound Care Center. This is a violation of the language of the ballot measure, which allows improvements on real property. Not the same as leased property. More on this later. Watch this space for details.

    Comment by the vigilante — August 12, 2011 @ 12:52 pm

  10. I think vigilante may be Dr. Gottstein.

    Comment by Kate Quick — August 12, 2011 @ 12:58 pm

  11. I have attached a copy of the letter, it was misread and corrected immediately. The letter addressed Director Battani appropriately as Director not Doctor.

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 12, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

  12. Thank you Lauren for bringing to our attention the thoughts of the medical professionals at Alameda Hospital who are actually delivering patient care. I noticed many ,if not all, of the speakers received their training at UCSF. I just wanted to point that out to Alameda Vigilante who has a positive bias towards medical professionals who graduated from that institution’s program.

    Comment by Nancy Hird — August 12, 2011 @ 1:22 pm

  13. From, this,…”because I don’t really have a strong feeling about whether it should stay open or whether it should close.”

    to this,

    (attributed to Gorelick) “…declared as not as good.”

    then to this,

    (attributed to Gorelick) “…you are doing a shitty job at your job?”

    in one measly week….nothing like having a disinterested moderator.

    Comment by Jack Richard — August 12, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

  14. Additionally Dr. Ray Yeh is a licensed osteopathic physician, he is licensed according to the State’s licensing website.

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 12, 2011 @ 2:13 pm

  15. Dr. R Yeh is miscaptioned as an MD in the video. How cozy that he & Dr. J. Yeh, both Gorelick critics, are BROTHERS. Sorta bumps their credibility, eh?
    You know, now that Gorelick has graduated w/his Doctorate in Pharmacy, it would only be appropriate & consistent for you (who haven’t the faintest appreciation for what the title means) to call him Dr. Gorelick. He has certainly acquitted himself more professionally than some of his MD critics. Even if he had attacked one of them personally (& he did NOT), the MD who responds in kind in a public forum endangers her license.
    Now let me confuse you with some historical facts. Before there was a parcel tax in 2002, wasn’t there a hospital board of trustees? Formation of the District created a new Board. Why should they be the same? According to the Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD), of 33 districts like Alameda’s, 16 have closed or sold their facilities. Many simply provide ambulance services, wellness centers, or senior programs. So it’s neither unusual or inappropriate to close a district hospital. And none of them have anywhere near the parcel tax we have! Come on & think, you guys, or Ann Coulter was right about you=”If Liberals had any brains, they’d be Republicans!”

    Comment by vigi — August 12, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

  16. Yes, brothers always bumps credibility! See Bush, et. al., e.g. Taking your word for his being granted a PhD, Gorelick is still listed with the State as an “Intern Pharmacist” as of yesterday. Alameda Hospital has been in operation since 1894. Closing it would 1) be against the interests of the people of Alameda who voted for the District; and 2) closing 16 of 33 districts is a rather specious argument because it fails to assess local interests, geography, and causation. You and the rest of Alameda’s citizens are a minimum 20 minutes away (longer if the bridge(s) are up) from another hospital. Try making the argument to close the hospital to the next person who has a heart attack.

    Furthermore, quote Ann Coulter reminds me that Socialist wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, that Jesus healed the sick and helped the poor for free, that Reagan raised taxes eleven times as President, and that Hate is not a Christian virtue.

    Comment by Richard Hausman — August 12, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

  17. post #16 my only disagreement with your post, I get to Kaiser Oakland in less than 20 min. more like 15.

    Comment by John P. — August 12, 2011 @ 8:34 pm

  18. #16 and #17. I also am in agreement with the #16 post. Kaiser Oakland is, I agree about 15 minutes away, but parking is another 15. However, ambulances get to park right at the door and don’t have to deal with the lot. When the new hospital is built, the parking structure, which is enormous, should relieve the parking issue. Our family uses Kaiser, but some years ago when my daughter had a rather serious work accident she was taken to Alameda Hospital and received excellent care there through emergency and a week and a half hospitalization. The nature of her injury was such that immediate medical care where minutes counted was necessary. I have many friends who use the hospital here in Alameda and speak well of their treatment there.

    Some who are so eager to dump on the hospital may be forgetting that the same arguments were presented to the voters and the voters decided that the hospital was necessary enough that they wished to tax themselves to pay for its existence.

    Comment by Kate Quick. — August 12, 2011 @ 9:34 pm

  19. 8

    The California Business Exodus – CEO CKE Restaurants, Andrew Puzder

    Comment by John — August 13, 2011 @ 1:20 am

  20. Alameda hospital would be very good if this were a 3rd world country. There is nothing disrespectful to those that work there in pointing this out. It is not a great, or even a good hospital by modern American standards or expectations. Again, this is not disrespectful of the workers.

    It is a decrepit old building not meeting seismic safety standards yet the main argument to keep it open rests upon the island’s need for it in case of an earthquake that cuts us off from the mainland. – How silly, the bridges and roads are in much better seismic condition that the hospital which just sucks needed assets from our community.

    Alameda only needs a small urgent care unit and we can rely on the hospitals in Oakland with all the abilities to meet our needs,(which is more than can be said for A.H.)
    With the passage of the hospital tax boondoggle, the hosp. board has become a political incubator for the TamBonitabots seemingly interested in personal political goals, not solving the medical needs of Alamedans. There is no financially realistic way to ever get the hospital building seismically safe for use as a hospital. Prolonging its closure is only wasting more revenue that should be used to organize and open the urgent care unit we will eventually have. The Board should work on getting the tax repealed, but of course it is not in their political self interest.

    Comment by clear as a bell — August 13, 2011 @ 8:14 am

  21. Hausman, don’t U know anything? Gorelick’s degree is a Pharm.D. not Ph.D. Every new grad is an intern until the State’s bureaocracy issues them a license. Any excuse to criticize, Richard?

    Comment by notmayberry — August 13, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

  22. *bureaucracy

    Comment by Richard Hausman — August 13, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

  23. #21&#22=I rest my case. Not a typo misses your eagle eye, Richard! Yet you flagrantly criticize what you don’t understand. That’s called penny wise, pound foolish. And in 1894, it was Alameda “Sanatorium”.

    Comment by notmayberry — August 14, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

  24. #12:Memo to Nancy Hird=I’d like to point out that NONE of the MD speakers on the video received their MD from UCSF, according to their Board bios. DO training Info isn’t available, but I don’t believe UCSF has such a school. Next time, you might want to do your homework before commenting. Good thing you don’t work in health care!
    (nothing wrong w/the med schools they went to, but accuracy is important=remember Barry Vinocur ? He worked @UCSF as a “doctor” w/o having ever been to medical school, a fact not discovered until he was about to receive a faculty appointment!)
    #18:Memo to Kate Quick=You seem to believe unreservedly in the wisdom of this small city’s electorate, w/o further monitoring of city officials once they’re in power. To do so would be to ignore the lessons of Bell, CA & Hercules, CA; cities who rightly deposed their duly elected officials once enough light was shone on their outrageous behavior. The 2006 document, California HealthCare Districts, obviously wasn’t yet published in 2002. It summarizes a lot about the LAFCo & parcel tax process that was NOT READILY AVAILABLE to the general voting public when the 6-figure salaried hospital administrators were soliciting signatures to “Save Alameda Hospital”, though they doubtless knew what they were doing to this City to ensure their future employment. I didn’t know then either what I’m trying to share with you all now; but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to correct the situation.

    Comment by vigi — August 14, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

  25. Reviewing that video again, there are many disingenous statements. Remember, Mr. Gorelick didn’t personally attack a single person in this video who personally attacked him. Those people are throughly unprofessional crackpots, IMHO. NO one claimed “training” @UCSF specific enough to pin it down; 2 were nurses–maybe that’s what they meant. One tellingly only started working @ AlaHosp after she realized how much property tax she was on the hook for. And Dr. Yeh compares AH to John George PSYCH pavilion & Fairmont Rehab! Embarrassing!!!

    Comment by vigi — August 14, 2011 @ 4:57 pm

  26. #12 Ms. Hird, since your organization’s mission advertises all this:

    “We protect the quality of life for Alamedans by:

    Promoting open government
    Advocating fiscal responsibility
    Analyzing critical comments on city issues
    Encouraging community involvement in city government

    Vision Statement (what we do)

    We are a permanent watchdog group advocating for effective government and we take actions as necessary to support ACT’s mission.

    We…

    Monitor and report on city public meetings
    Critically analyze and comment on important issues in Alameda
    Provide city/community with factual information to support decision making
    Promote advocacy and participation by reaching out to other community groups

    Our Core Values are:

    Vigilance
    Truth
    Civility”

    One would think, after reading your # 12 that you might be a hospital spokesperson rather than a critical analyst.

    And, though it has nothing to do with the hospital, this recently came to light:

    “The Alameda city council has unanimously approved a $204,611 contract to run an Estuary Crossing Shuttle Service for one year, starting August 15th. Part of the cost is being covered by a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Transportation Fund for Clean Air.”

    Could your organization find out how the Alameda portion breaks out on this? Also, the free Shuttle Service is advertised for the benefit of COA students traveling to Oakland and is open to anybody traveling to and fro from COA to Lake M BART. Doesn’t this service do a disservice to the long term interests of Alamedans by undercutting AC Transit? Who’s to say this will last longer than a year but by then why should AC Transit continue estuary transit service?

    Comment by Jack Richard — August 14, 2011 @ 5:17 pm

  27. Jack we can Thank Jon Spankler and John Knox White with Transform converting our money to theirs.

    We’ve won literally billions of dollars and groundbreaking policies in support of public transportation, smart growth, affordable housing, and bicycle/pedestrian safety.
    Support TransForm today.

    http://transformca.org/donate
    .

    Comment by John — August 14, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

  28. Jack it appears it’s a duplicate service that AC transit provides that is gushing red ink and needs a tourniquet so we will jump on bandwagon and give the service away to help their financial situation which is losing 21 Million projected for 2012.

    Comment by John — August 14, 2011 @ 6:44 pm

  29. Took 200K To Find this all out…LOL

    But the economic downturn stalled the development and ultimately the possibility of the water taxi. Then in 2008, BikeAlameda secured $200,000 for a feasibility study to identify solutions to the estuary crossing problem. The study was finalized in 2009.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5AhdjbdyLwQJ:alameda.patch.com/articles/west-end-estuary-crossing-shuttle-coming-in-august+estuary+crossing+feasibility+study&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

    Comment by John — August 14, 2011 @ 7:07 pm

  30. 2008 AC was Bleeding RED but that doesn’t stop giving 200K to do a study on giving free service away.

    AC Transit Chief Financial Officer Lewis Clinton Jr. said that even with the $20.4 million in federal stimulus money recently granted to the district through the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the district is currently projecting a $27.6 million operating deficit for the 2008-09 fiscal year ending June 30.

    Comment by John — August 14, 2011 @ 7:15 pm

  31. John, Nancy Hird asked you a question on your comment in the “Bigger Isn’t better” post wanting you to expand on your “reaching the tipping point” opinion. I would like to hear your opinion why you think the tripping point has been reached.

    Comment by Jack Richard — August 14, 2011 @ 7:22 pm

  32. Thank you John (#29) for the link to answer Jack’s question posed in #26 regarding the expense to the city. Seems the $236K grant would cover the $204K contract. I have forwarded your question to the ACT member who follows and enlightens us about Alameda’s Transportation Commission. If there is more to hear about this, I will share the response. The last I heard, AC Transit was cutting services in Alameda and I don’t know how they have served the students attending classes at 2 campuses.

    I am not a hospital spokesperson but I do hope we can keep Alameda Hospital open as a hospital for as long as possible. My husband and I are covered under a PPO Blue Cross plan, use the facility and have had good service as well as good care for what they can provide. I am an experienced healthcare administrator who is currently unemployed so I do know how to form an educated opinion about this particular subject. This being said, I can also honestly say I was favorably impressed when meeting Elliott Gorelick at the ACT meeting last Thursday. He was honest, forthright and humble as he thoughtfully answered many questions from the group.

    Comment by Nancy Hird — August 14, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

  33. Thanks for your response, Nancy, I appreciate it.

    Comment by Jack Richard — August 14, 2011 @ 10:08 pm

  34. 32
    ” I can also honestly say I was favorably impressed when meeting Elliott Gorelick at the ACT meeting last Thursday. ”
    “He was honest, forthright and humble as he thoughtfully answered many questions from the group.”

    How Refreshing.!

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 1:20 am

  35. John, a couple of points of clarity. Neither AC Transit, nor Alameda County, (unclear on which AC your comment was based on). The Estuary Crossing Feasibility study was funded by ACTIA (now ACTC) by Measure B funds, the 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation projects and planning.

    Jack, your concerns are shared by AC Transit board members and some transit advocates. The project is funded for one-year by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. While the service provided does not completely duplicate any AC Transit service, it does offer significantly similar service, though in fairness, the Laney College users have to walk a bit in order to use the existing services.

    The one thing the shuttle provides, which is the reason for it’s existence, is a cross-estuary connection for bicyclists on the west end that has more than two racks (which can be filled on AC Transit’s buses, causing people to wait). The shuttle has room for about 12 bikes, and will directly connect COA and Laney, which share a significant population of students.

    Comment by John Knox White — August 15, 2011 @ 8:54 am

  36. JKW

    My comment was based on a service that was already being provided by AC transit and we were looking to do the same service and paying 200K of Tax Dollars for a feasabilty study no matter where the money came from for a select few and offer the service for free.

    Maybe you could offer a Service for the Donkey Club of Alameda.Were a small group and We love to ride our Donkeys to work and School. We have 23 Mules 16 Donkeys and a few Asses.

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 10:27 am

  37. Let me try and save the taxpayers 610K next time.

    411K for Program and 200K for Study.

    Buy 5 of these for the buses and you double your bike capacity.on buses.

    http://www.discountramps.com/hitch-bike-rack.htm

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 10:48 am

  38. Donate the other 500 to Transform thinktank.

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 10:51 am

  39. The Feasibility Study examined more than just a shuttle, it looked at all the possible crossing options. This is the only copy I could find because the City’s new website didn’t retain all the old links.

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 15, 2011 @ 10:51 am

  40. Thanks Lauren, John, the feasibility study wasn’t to run a shuttle, it was to look at all the possible ways to cross the estuary, identify costs and feasibility, and recommend short and long-term solutions. It succeeded at that.

    The shuttle was one of the short/mid-range solutions that came out of it.

    The shuttle is for all Alamedans and Oaklanders, bikers or not, so the idea that it’s for a select few is incorrect.

    It would be nice if the world allowed you to make decisions via imperial fiat wouldn’t it? It sure would streamline decision-making and make sure that all solutions met your personal perceptions of need and effectiveness.

    That said, your solution and my personal preference are perfectly in line with each other. Bigger racks, more flexibililty in terms of cyclists using AC Transit’s buses, and let cyclists board the buses for free at the last stop in Alameda as long as they disembark at the first stop in Oakland. (could be expanded to all riders).

    No additional vehicles on the street, maximize existing capacity and meet the goals of the program at very little cost.

    Comment by John Knox White — August 15, 2011 @ 10:58 am

  41. “No additional vehicles on the street, maximize existing capacity and meet the goals of the program at very little cost.”

    Wouldn’t adding a larger Bikerack on Buses serve same purpose and would have saved 610K and a cost of 1-2 thousand.

    But would not have covered your Consultant and PR time, Your insight is invaluable . Well just about….I’m sure it cost us plenty..LOL

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 11:08 am

  42. John, you do realize that the Crossing Study was done by Arup and not by Transform right?

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 15, 2011 @ 11:17 am

  43. “…was done by Arup…”

    Maybe it was something you ate last night Loren.

    Comment by Jack Richard — August 15, 2011 @ 12:09 pm

  44. Sorry Lauren, I spelled it the way my dad spelled his name.

    Comment by Jack Richard — August 15, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

  45. Why is Transform accepting donations for studies the City pays it our tax dollars to do? Or is it just so JKW can eat? I’m confused. All I know is it’s part of the New World Order, being an actuary of UN Agenda21, opposed to the holding of private property by individuals. BEWARE of that Transform website link. I just tried to print out their Bd of Directors single sheet & my public computer was fed 1000+ more pages containing only their header & footer! Is that site infested w/a virus?

    Comment by vigi — August 15, 2011 @ 12:13 pm

  46. Lauren Just Google Estuary Crossing and read all the history thru all the pages.

    JSpangler/Hudson John Knox White fingerprints on everything….Its a circle jerk for consultants

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

  47. John: I’m not sure what you are referring to, but during the time that the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study was making its way through the City process, JKW was chairing the Transportation Commission. Any input that links JKW to the study would probably be through that process. I’m not quite sure where you believe Jon Spangler falls in all this, but you have repeatedly reported that he is employed at Transform, which is incorrect.

    Comment by Lauren Do — August 15, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

  48. Laren

    Well it was on his Resume. I know he is a man of many hats…LOL

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

  49. John, in #41 the quote that you pulled was me suggesting the benefits of my own, personal suggestion for the estuary crossing, which is exactly the same as yours.

    You appear to be arguing out of instinct. :-)

    Comment by John Knox White — August 15, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

  50. Someone Else read it also…

    Re-examine retirement « Blogging Bayport Alameda
    laurendo.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/re-examine-retirement/ – Cached- Block all laurendo.wordpress.com results
    Not helpful? You can block laurendo.wordpress.com results when you’re signed in to search.laurendo.wordpress.com
    Jun 8, 2011 –

    20.Wow, there are so many Johns here, I feel like I’m visiting a bordello! Could yall use aliases of your choice so we can tell U apart? Could someone please explain why both JKW & Jon Spangler presume to speak w/such authority when neither has any I could find. They don’t work for the City of Alameda; never have. Their CVs say they work for TransForm

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

  51. JON M. SPANGLER jon.spangler@att.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonmspangler 94501-3963 EXPERIENCED COMMUNICATOR, MARKETER, & ADVOCATE Revised, edited, researched, and proofread Transportation and Land Use Coalition Strategic Plan: 2005-2008 (2005) and Access Now! transit advocacy manual (2004) on rush deadlines (http://transformca.org/resource/access-now). Wrote, researched, edited, and proofread Cross Alameda Trail Vision Plan (2004) for
    local trails committee
    (http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/TrailDART/Report_Cros

    sAlameda.pdf). Wrote and edited grant proposal documents, press releases, trail brochure, and
    PowerPoint copy.
    Led trail walk, presented trail plans to City Council, College of Alameda, PTA.

    Edited successful $881,000 Transportation for Livable Communities grant
    application documents (2001) for Phase I of the $2.8M Webster Renaissance Project,
    now completed.

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

  52. Dr. Gottstein (#45),

    As Lauren has pointed out, TransForm received not money and had no role in either the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study or the shuttle that launched today.

    Comment by John Knox White — August 15, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

  53. I think this is same as Transform. And his Resume Links to it

    http://transformca.org/resource/access-now

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

  54. John,

    As I’m sure Mr. Spangler will attest, the two items that he lists as editing were done as a volunteer editor, not an employee. He has never worked for TransForm.

    By the way, the Cross Alameda Trail was a Rails-to-Trail and City project, had nothing to do with TransForm.

    Comment by John Knox White — August 15, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

  55. We in Alameda want to thank you for all that you guys do as Volunteers. You are quite a pair to draw to…You can defend the Undefensible which puts you in a category of two.

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

  56. I guess he left the Word Volunteer out…..Probably trying to save room…Because I know he is always short on words.

    EXPERIENCED COMMUNICATOR, MARKETER, & ADVOCATE Revised, edited, researched, and proofread Transportation and Land Use Coalition Strategic Plan: 2005-2008 (2005) and Access Now! transit advocacy manual (2004) on rush deadlines (http://transformca.org/resource/access-now)

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

  57. Yep, he left an opening for someone who wanted to connect dots that don’t exist to connect them. How this is particularly relevant to anything, especially given the lack of relevancy of you other comments, is beyond me.

    Jon Spangler worked as a volunteer at a non-profit, helping to edit reports they wrote.

    Sounds like a nice thing to be accused of.

    Comment by John Knox White — August 15, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

  58. That’s why we thank him. You guys are piece of work….LOL

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 5:26 pm

  59. He is never one to pat himself on back either.with his back up batteries for his self back patting machine at every chance.LOL

    EXPERIENCED COMMUNICATOR, MARKETER, & ADVOCATE Revised, edited, researched, and proofreader

    Doesn’t leave out Volunteer .

    But I trust you.

    Comment by John — August 15, 2011 @ 5:33 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 782 other followers