Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 16, 2010

No accountant for taste

Filed under: Alameda, Business, City Council — Tags: , — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

Based on a tip I received, I recently made a public records request for invoices for a particular City of Alameda contractor for work done last fiscal year.  That contractor was Moreland Personnel Services.

According to the contract signed by Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant on September 22, 2009, there was a need in the City for temporary staffing in the form of an Accounting Manager for six weeks.   The billing rate for these temporary services was $101 per hour, with overtime billed at time and a half and anything over 12 hours a day would be double time.   All housing expenses would be reimbursed as well as travel and mileage.

So, for some reason, six weeks extended to eight months and the cost for this temporary employee is staggering.

First, before I get to the invoices, let me remind you of how contracts are supposed to work.   There is a limit to how much any one City employee can contract the City to spend.   The City Manager, or in this case, the Interim City Manager can contract up to $75,000 without City Council approval:

Contracts for personal or professional services involving specialized knowledge, including, without limitation, architects, engineers, or accountants, in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) or more must be approved by Council. [emphasis added]

But for one Accounting Manager, between actual work, housing costs (hotel, rent, cable, electricity), and travel costs, the City of Alameda paid $173,207.37.

No, that’s not a typo.  $173,207.37.

Here’s the breakdown (the contract is the first two pages):

10/5 – 10/15 $8,119.48
10/16 – 10/30 $10.812.79
11/2 – 11/13 $9,264.57
11/16 – 11/25 $7,782.20
12/1 – 12/15 $10,731.96
12/16 – 12/30 $11,161.16
1/4 – 1/14 $11,856.66
1/18 – 1/24 $9,643.65
2/1 – 2/12 $9,694.84
2/16 – 2/26 $9,148.05
3/1 – 3/15 $12,579.37
3/16 – 3/31 $9,722.00
4/1 – 4/15 $10,331.82
4/16 – 4/30 $8,930.50
5/3 – 5/14 $11,943.13
5/17 – 5/28 $10,972.67
6/4 – 6/15 $8,270.52
6/16 – 6/23 $2,242.00

I guess what is really disturbing about this is that it well exceeds the amount that it would have cost the City just to a hire a full time staff person (or persons).   After all, the whole point of hiring a contractor is to reduce costs, not pay more for services.   For example, according to the State Controllers office, here are the salary costs for Finance Department employees for the City of Alameda:

Classification Annual Salary
Annual Salary
Senior Account Clerk $39,180 $55,130
Accounting Technician $43,224 $60,802
Accountant II $67,808 $82,420
Administrative Management Analyst $77,376 $94,042
Financial Analyst &
Supervising Accountant
$85,306 $103,688
Administrative Specialist II $96,283 $142,230
Finance Director $137,026 $166,556

In eight months, the City of Alameda paid more for a temporary “Accounting Manager” then what our full time Finance Director (if we had one) would have been paid.


  1. O My Goodness!

    And how many City employees are earning over $200,000 per year in salaries and benefits? If we’re going to get our panties in a twist, let’s go after the real hogs at the trough. What is Leslie Little paid, and what has she accomplished, for example, in the past year? “Economic Development?” Retention? How about all those closed storefronts on Park and Webster?

    Let’s go after the everyday, ongoing waste!

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 16, 2010 @ 6:17 am

  2. Lest we forget that the temporary employee will be sent on his way without severance, pension, or benefits (not to mention the lawsuits terminations inspire. Too bad we didn’t get a deal like that with the fire chief. I’d say we’re getting off cheap with this one.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 16, 2010 @ 6:51 am

  3. And $101/hr is quite cheap for most professional services.

    Comment by dave — November 16, 2010 @ 7:12 am

  4. At an average of $20,000 per month for an “Accounting Manager” I hardly think the City is getting off “cheap.” Had the person worked a full year as a full time employee would have to, we would have been looking at paying someone $252,000, more than what even the Interim City Manager herself is collecting for salary.

    Not to mention the fact that the contract well exceeded the amount that any one employee is allowed to spend without City Council approval.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 7:20 am

  5. Go out & hire some finance professionals on a contract basis. You’ll find that rate is low, though it of course can vary greatly depending on job duties. $400/hr is not uncommon for serious projects.

    Comment by dave — November 16, 2010 @ 7:37 am

  6. It’s easier to understand how the realm of legal counsel may require specific expertise which falls outside that of the City Attorney’s office under certain circumstances, but it’s not as clear to me why and how there are other gaps in the in-house expertise of staff on something like accounting. What was the job description under which ICM was originally hired as a consultant?

    Some types of consulting iare a racket. A local business person who sold his consulting business for a lot of money joked to me that consultants are people you pay to read your own watch to tell you what time it is.

    Comment by M.I. — November 16, 2010 @ 7:49 am

  7. MI: there is not a job description, but the contract is the first two pages in this PDF.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 8:04 am

  8. As I read the invoices the ICM is in the clear for 2009 but in 6 months of 2010 she exceeded her contracting authority.

    Lauren, did you find any evidence that the City Council reviewed or approved this contract in 2010? If they did not I would say that the ICM is a slow learner since this issue has come up at least once before in open session…

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 16, 2010 @ 8:05 am

  9. Hi Jon: I did a search on the City’s website for any reference to “Moreland” or “Macias” without any success. Generally contracts for approval would have the business name in the agenda item. Also, the City is on a July to June fiscal year, not calendar year.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 8:24 am

  10. Lauren,
    Just wondering if you tried to contact the ICM to ask her why there was a need for this temp.
    #6. There are many different types of Accountants…Fiduciary, Governmental, Industrial and Public. Each having a different expertise.

    Comment by J.E.A. — November 16, 2010 @ 8:31 am

  11. JEA: I actually asked for the work product for this consultant, but was told there were no public responsive documents, at this point I am waiting for clarification that of whether there are no work products period or simply no public ones.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 8:39 am

  12. My kid’s a computer software consultant working for a consulting Co. out of Charlotte NC. He’s currently consulting in Cincinnati. He gets $150 ph plus they pay his airfare each week to and from Cincinnati and per diem for his temp housing, No benefits, no withholding, six month contract which may or may not be renewed or extended. Private company not government, though he has consulted for various Gov agencies. Same deal as POC’s.

    105 seems cheap.

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 16, 2010 @ 8:50 am

  13. oops, 101 seems even cheaper

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 16, 2010 @ 8:51 am

  14. I am doing some consulting and design work for a remote accounting company…. they charge $130/hour without going onsite.

    Comment by Jack B. — November 16, 2010 @ 8:57 am

  15. You’re not including the fully burdened costs which is on top of the annual salary paid to full time employees – both government and private industry.

    Comment by Karen Bey — November 16, 2010 @ 9:27 am

  16. This is amusingly similar to the bond underwriting non-controversy from last summer. That one was pretty obviously spoon fed to our blogmistress. This one is plainly stated as a “tip.”

    Things that make you go “Hmmmmm.” With a wry smile.

    Comment by dave — November 16, 2010 @ 9:33 am

  17. Health, Dental and Vision benefits
    Pension Contributions
    Paid Leave – (Sick, Vacation, Holiday, Personal)
    Unemployment Insurance
    Disability Insurance
    Life Insurance

    are just some of the fully burdened payroll costs. The rate paid to temporary or contract workers are at the fully burdened rate.

    Comment by Karen Bey — November 16, 2010 @ 9:37 am

  18. Some examples of “fully burdened payroll rates”

    Health, Dental and Vision benefits
    Pension Contributions
    Paid Leave – (Sick, Vacation, Holiday, Personal)
    Unemployment Insurance
    Disability Insurance
    Life Insurance

    The rate paid to temporary or contract workers are at the fully burdened rate.

    Comment by Karen Bey — November 16, 2010 @ 9:55 am

  19. dave: the difference between this and the bond underwriting one was that here, the total contract cost is hovering at $173K which exceeds the purchasing cost of the City Manager without City Council approval. The bond underwriting one was significant because of the previous relationship the ICM had with the selected bond agency.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 9:57 am

  20. I meant to say examples of fully burdened costs….

    Also I hope we’re not going to spend the next year or so looking at every contract the ICM enters into. We’ve got more important issues on the horizon. Many of us want to move on from this divisive attack on our city staff and leaders. SunCal left a big wound in this community and I personally am tired of the SunCal wars.

    Comment by Karen Bey — November 16, 2010 @ 10:21 am

  21. dave, The first thing I thought about when I read this is the comparison to fully “burdened payroll”. I’m not prepared to make any conclusion about the amount in that regard, but I do hear Lauren’s point about how the contract crept past the $75K limit.

    Lauren has an agenda here. BFD. Would you rather know nothing of this contract or others like it? I want to know more about the task performed before making any conclusions about the validity of the contract, but to me the issue of how ICM goes about her business IS a BFD. To that point I think the new post about ARRA by JKW at SFgate is salient.

    Comment by M.I. — November 16, 2010 @ 10:25 am

  22. Again, I have to wonder if this outrage is being targeted because it dishes dirt on the ICM, or because it’s especially egregious? And was Lauren this critical of that spendthrift the last City Manager, or does she must have a wild hair about Gallant? In other words, is this fiduciary or personal?

    In the ’80s and ’90s, much of my work was as an independent consultant, and I was usually brought in by senior management when middle management wasn’t doing it’s job, or when my hourly, (“unburdened”), was far less expensive than having a marketing communications expert on staff. I found the independence wonderfully liberating, and would recommend consulting to anyone with special skills and the “Have Gun, Will Travel” marksmanship.

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 16, 2010 @ 10:34 am

  23. All I’m saying is “Let SunCal do their own dirty work”. Let’s not give them the power to destroy what’s good about Alameda.

    Comment by Karen Bey — November 16, 2010 @ 10:50 am

  24. Karen: I guess the first step is stopping the “SunCal wars” is to stop bringing SunCal into every discussion that is critical of the Interim City Manager.

    The main point of this post is to point out that the City — as I’ve written about before — has contracting limits in the Municipal Code which clearly was not followed here.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 10:57 am

  25. Lauren, considering the expensive campaign SunCal waged against the Interim City Manager, it’s very difficult to separate the criticism.

    Comment by Karen Bey — November 16, 2010 @ 11:01 am

  26. Back to the point of the post. The city has rules about expenditures. The ICM cannot spend more than $75K without council approval, and yet, has spent $173K+ without such approval.

    Ignoring the rate the contractor charged (certainly within the reasonable range) and whether the person should be a temp or permanent employee. The issue raised shows yet another sidestepping of long established rules.

    It speaks directly to how public money is being spent without legally required oversight. If there was no problem with this contract and the amount, then it should have gone to the City Council for approval, like many others do.

    Comment by John Knox White — November 16, 2010 @ 11:01 am

  27. Since when the “burden” is paid time and half or double

    Comment by flow — November 16, 2010 @ 11:05 am

  28. Karen: assuming that everyone who criticizes that ICM is sympathetic to SunCal’s behavior during the election continues the real or perceived “damage” caused by SunCal.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 11:05 am

  29. 16.
    Make that a “Rye” smile. I found some.

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 16, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

  30. And so the coordinated campaign to remove Anne-Marie Gallant to make it easier for SunCal to come back to Alameda begins…

    Go Lauren, go! Get your Do-bots in a lather over nothing. You and John use your blogs to incite outrage over things you can’t control, and whine as loudly as you can and hope that your sponsors can get their tentacles back in the door.

    Keep at it, it just might work, now that you’ve dispensed with all subtlety.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

  31. Sorry, I meant begins anew. I got SunCal’s direct mailers like everyone else did…

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

  32. Where did you find the rye????

    Comment by dave — November 16, 2010 @ 12:41 pm

  33. #23: All I’m saying is “Let SunCal do their own dirty work”.

    Karen says it well. These attacks on the city manager are obviously part of a coordinated attack on behalf of SunCal, just like all the coordinated PR attacks that you engaged in during the Measure B campaign and thereafter. This is how you’re perceived, with good reason, because this is what you did, with the diligence of a dedicated employee.

    It’s like a dog with a bone. Just let go — give it a rest for once.

    I just read thru the power point for the ARRA presentation tonight (taken from JKW and posted on the ARRA thread), and it struck me again, how fortunate we are to have someone with Ann Marie Gallant’s expertise and breadth of knowledge to put together a community-based plan for AP. She has done so many good things for the city, she doesn’t deserve all these mean-spirited (and cynical) attacks.

    Comment by dlm — November 16, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

  34. The rye is in the wry. And lauren’s protests to the contrary,she tends to target the city employees she dislikes, and that’s more on point than any of Jon Spangler’s posts have ever been, or JKW’s either! These blogsters all betray the same biases, and they’re not pretty,just the same old crap that just happens, incidentally, to echo SunCal.

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 16, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

  35. Dennis: I think all bloggers go after certain City Employees for various reasons. In your case (and your friend David Howard) Superintendent Kirsten Vital is enemy number one. Leslie Little is a common target as well.

    In this case, as I mentioned before, there are clear rules to contracting authority. Anything exceeding $75,000 must go through the City Council. This was not done here. The buck ultimately stops with Ann Marie Gallant and the fact I am getting push back over what the scope of the work this contractor was doing for the City is puzzling.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

  36. “I think all bloggers go after certain City Employees for various reasons.”

    The same way developers from Irvine choose blogs to list as their guide of who to endorse in elections in Alameda, 500 miles away?

    In the same vein, Lauren, when do we get back to how sharing CONFIDENTIAL email against City interest with SunCal is bad?

    Your level of chutzpah is astonishing. How do you sleep at night?

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 1:31 pm

  37. Adam Gillitt: As I have pointed out time and time again, the information SunCal used to put out that mailer was public. No one asked me for my permission to use my blog or the information I provided.

    In the case of the City of Alameda v. Lena Tam there is no case anymore. As part of Alameda Post you can feel free to beat people over the head with it to your hearts content. And your readers can choose to accept your version of events or not.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

  38. You keep hoping people accept your version, Lauren, which they seem not to. I’ll keep on with the facts, which seem to be pretty clear.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

  39. Adam: Good luck with Alameda Post.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 1:55 pm

  40. DLM

    The ICM does do a good job and its a shame she has to endure these kind of attacks.

    I don’t appreciate SunCal trying to hand pick our City Manager, but thats what appears to be going on.

    Comment by Karen Bey — November 16, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

  41. Lauren,

    I truly wish I could say the feeling was mutual, but you’re not working in the best interests of the citizens of this City, nor do you and your associates even pretend to.

    Your efforts at exclusion, your nasty campaigns to take City officials down, and your outright venom towards those you oppose in your quest to destroy this community are not going unnoticed, nor will they remain unchallenged.

    Your days are numbered, and what was once such a care-free laugh is getting a lot more nervous, we have all noticed.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

  42. 33.”It’s like a dog with a bone. Just let go — give it a rest for once.” yes, except you folks are the dog pack and SunCal is the bone.

    For all her expertise, the full breadth of ICM’s skills don’t appear to be 100% flattering to her, but I guess if they are adamantly applied against SunCal, all that can be overlooked.

    If there is “leakage” at City Hall it’s not hard to imagine that rather than being motivated by a desire to aid SunCal it’s motivated by ICM’s management style. Remember the motivational posters?

    Comment by M.I. — November 16, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

  43. Lauren, as my favorite Journalist Matt Taibbi would say “F–K these guys”. They are not worth the ink. The issue is $75,000. or council approval. Not all of the side show about SunCal the dead horse. Do-bot #1.

    Comment by John piziali — November 16, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

  44. Karen: I was going to email you offline, but decided to just state this definitively, again.

    I have been blogging well before either SunCal or Ann Marie Gallant came to Alameda and the hope is I’ll be blogging well after both are just a distant blip in Alameda’s memory.

    I don’t work for SunCal and I haven’t talked to SunCal for a long time now, so the insinuations that either of these facts are true are completely incorrect.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

  45. Adam: again, good luck with Alameda Post.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

  46. Lauren, the truth doesn’t require luck.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

  47. Adam: I hope you will be able to create a site that doesn’t “degenerate into ad hominem insults” and will be able to craft “neutral” news stories. I look forward to your product.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

  48. It will be a refreshing change from your, um, [insert relevant description of whatever this is] of the internet.

    Lovely to see you engaging today, Lauren. It’s so obvious when a nerve has been struck. Again, truth doesn’t take luck, but what you’re doing does.

    Comment by AlamedaPost — November 16, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

  49. Adam: Blogging is easy, all it takes is persistence, which you have in spades, so I’m sure you’ll do fine. The more the merrier.

    Again, good luck and you know, content always helps bring actual readers.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 16, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

  50. Jesus, Lauren, give it a rest! This is NOT about you, or even your fractured judgment. You target certain people, and ignore all the rest, as if that sort of narrow-mindedness serves the best interests of us all.

    The more defensive you get, the more indefensible your blog becomes. But I guess you don’t register that, because you’re NOT a journalist, just a blogster! Nothing wring with that, if you can justify your personal attacks as somehow universal.

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 16, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

  51. Suncals fate is in the lap of the courts at this time. Nobody wants them back. However, should the court find for them and find that the city was negotiating in bad faith, the culprit is not the council or the community, neither of whom were negotiating. Who do you think it was?

    Comment by Barbara Kahn — November 16, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

  52. Oh, Bev,yet another conspiracy theory? Doh! Could you be referring to the ICM? And if SunCal prevails in their lawsuits, so unlikely, will you celebrate or mourn?

    Your post is one of the most twisted I’ve seen here in several hours. How can you possibly call yourself an Alamedan, or live with such thoughts?

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 16, 2010 @ 3:35 pm

  53. Correction: “Barb”

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 16, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

  54. So who’s doing the investigation into the mounting costs of pulling city employees away from other duties to compile and release documentation to support the conjecture of local blogsters? I used to think the attacks on Lauren and company having some vested interest in the SunCal agenda were unfair but I’m beginning to wonder. Methinks they doth protest too much. It’s not enough that Gilmore, Tam, and Bonta were elected, you won’t rest until Gallant is out as well. The number one reason anybody in this town has for disliking the ICM is that she fired them or someone they know. Period. This is Mayberry, remember? The game playing is getting tedious. The jobs are open guys, you’ve been working hard enough for free. Get on board and get paid for it. Barb’s comment is especially chilling, which underscores that none of this is really about any legitimate concern for how the taxpayers dollars are spent but about ego and getting one’s own way, no matter the cost to others.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — November 16, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

  55. First, Lauren, thank you for your muckraking journalism. I read your posts regularly, and find you bring intriguing issues to light that I don’t see anywhere else.
    Second, folks, if my City government is wasting my tax dollars, I want to know about it. Thank you Lauren, for bringing this to light.
    Third, I’m eager to hear what the deal is. What did we spend $173,200 dollars on, and what does it mean to have ‘no public responsive documents?’

    Comment by Catherine — November 16, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

  56. No, thank YOU Catherine, for that fine, truly spontaneous performance.

    *applauds, laughs, throws spare change*

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 5:48 pm

  57. 32.

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 16, 2010 @ 5:56 pm

  58. Lauren’s accusations would carry more weight if they were applied across the board instead of just targeted to Gallant and other people she dislikes. She isn’t the muckraker she pretends to be, or she would be going after much bigger targets in the City budget. Until she does, she’s just a pretender!

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 16, 2010 @ 5:57 pm

  59. Speaking of which, JeffCatherine, folks should really should learn how to disguise their writing style better.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

  60. I guess I’m not understanding this line of reasoning. Someone decides to start a blog. Apparently, anybody can. But, if one rises above others in popularity, judging strictly by hits, it becomes something akin to the “commons” and no longer belongs to the creator and owner.

    I got that right?

    Comment by Jack Richard — November 16, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

  61. Hey Adam,

    Remember that conversation about… if you don’t like the music at the party, host your own party? I’m sure you could get a following at your new site. But, instead of calling it AlamedaPost, how about ?

    I mean… why try to even be balanced? I say go for it, have some fun… knock it out of the park. If Lauren’s playing pop music, why don’t you break out the METAL?

    Just trying to be encouraging. Kind regards, – Superclean

    Comment by Jack B. — November 16, 2010 @ 8:07 pm

  62. As a professional designer, Jack B., being familiar with your work, I’ll give you a pass just this once and follow the adage “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” Kind of how I feel about Dave Matthews, come to think of it.

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 16, 2010 @ 8:13 pm

  63. I believe we are in agreement about Dave Matthews. Besides, he owes me a pizza.

    Comment by Jack B. — November 16, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

  64. So, if this accountant worked a full year her salary would have been $230,000?? With all the talk about jobs, we’re okay with hiring someone to come from southern California, we pay her rent, utilities and the cost for her to travel back and forth to southern California? We’re just okay with that? I’m not. Do you mean we couldn’t find an accountant in San Francisco? Oakland? Alameda? Palo Alto? NORTHERN CALIFORNIA?

    Wasn’t there a Council candidate who jumped in the race because of the City Manager’s contracting practices? I suspect the next race will be filled with angry accountants. Who cares who it is, Gallant, Mickey Mouse, Puff the Magic Dragon, there are policies and procedures in place to keep us out of trouble. Didn’t a Councilmember get investigated for doing the exact same thing?

    Not to bring the dreaded City of Bell back into the dialogue, but when practices are consistently violated, we need to be able to question it, without this angry, and unkind discussion thread.

    Comment by R.U. Amuckraker — November 16, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

  65. I’m not a fan of either SunCal or the ICM, and I think it’s important that the questionable practices of both are brought to light. If the ICM is exceeding her authority, that’s an issue. Thank you, Lauren, for persisting.

    (And please just ignore you-know-who. By responding you are giving him the illusion that he is relevant.)

    Comment by Jill — November 17, 2010 @ 7:32 am

  66. OMG!!!! Voldemort is back? And here I was convinced Lauren was just working with SunCal. Good thing we all have that new Harry Potter movie to queue up for this weekend!

    How old are you Jill? Do you not already know that sticking your fingers in your ears and going “la la la” does not make the bogeyman go away? If you want an Alameda free of SunCal, pay attention and do exactly the opposite of what Lauren says. Or, be an apologist, and learn to say “I remember when…”

    Comment by Adam Gillitt — November 17, 2010 @ 10:37 am

  67. This stuff is outrageous. We paid for this accountant’s rent, utilities, travel AND FURNITURE RENTAL. We paid her comcast bill. There are many families in Alameda who would love to have the City do all this for them. What was so special about this accountant that we had to go to southern California to find her? Hopefully she cracked the City’s financial problems and was worth every $$$ we paid to her. I can’t wait to see if you get a final product from this contract. It must be amazing. I’m sad that our City Council continues to let this happen to us. Despite what the comments say, the ICM continues to do whatever she wants and doesn’t clue her bosses in. I’m going to ask the 2 Councilmembers I relate to politically, Bev and Doug if they knew about this agreement.

    Comment by Howard M. — November 17, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

  68. You’re all going to be sooo embarrassed if it turns out that this accountant did a special project no one in the Bay Area could do, that it wound up saving the City millions, and was more than worth the expenditure. Instead, you all jump on the ICM as if she can’t possibly do anything right. And that’s just plain immoral, and stupid.

    Comment by Dennis Green — November 18, 2010 @ 8:03 am

  69. Brief follow up: according to the City Clerk’s office, she did:

    …general accounting manager duties such as spread sheets, etc but did not produce a work product…

    and from the City Manager’s Office, she

    …did temporary accounting work for us [the City] for a number of months…

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 18, 2010 @ 8:11 am

  70. Clearly, Adam is out here as a troll … might be best to ignore the lunatic fringe.

    Comment by alameda — December 1, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: