Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 6, 2018

Has left the building

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

Did you know that the City’s agenda item from last Tuesday’s City Council meeting changed from the City acting as a Plaintiff  to the City as a Defendant?

That was weird right?

And now it appears that the item for tonight’s agenda that may have been the continuation of that has been withdrawn:

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)
(1) of Government Code Section 54956.9
Number of cases: One (As Defendant – City Exposure to Legal Action)
Withdrawn on January 31st at 4:00 p.m.

So this could mean that whatever happened on Tuesday of last week was not promising for the person or persons who were contemplating a legal action against the City of Alameda.  Which means that if last week’s City Council meeting was indeed to read the report regarding Memo-gate (I dunno folks, this one is a hard one to have a name stick to it) then it doesn’t look great for the City Councilmember(s) who were looking for absolution from the report.

Based on the reporting from Steven Tavares over at EB Citizen:

Oddie is also believed to have hired legal representation for the matter. He was the first councilmember to leave the meeting Tuesday evening, followed by Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer. Both rushed out of the building and declined to comment.

We already know that Jim Oddie hired the same law firm which provided cover for former Councilmember Lena Tam who — based on another one of these reports which did not get released to the public yet — the City Council voted in Closed Session to award her legal fees.

It would be nice if we could get a report out on whether the Council discussed releasing the report to the public and if they did what the vote was to release (or not release).  I — and I’m sure others — would be very interested in what the scope of the report was to cover and the findings.

Or maybe it just ends up being a nothingburger like the Nunes Memo.

Oh there’s also a request for more License Plate Readers on the agenda.


  1. Based on the Twitter feed from #alamtg the topic vehicle plate readers has people questioning the amount of surveillance needed versus personal privacy. In New York an exhibit opened detailing the surveillance tactics used by NYPD during the 60s and 70s with over 200,000 photos taken. An interesting piece of history.—-now-you-can-see-what-they-collected/ss-BBIMZwO

    Comment by Mike McMahon — February 7, 2018 @ 7:44 am

    • I caught only snippets of the meeting last night, but there was mention of a connection between the proposed vendor and ICE

      Comment by MP — February 7, 2018 @ 8:17 am

  2. Vigilant Solutions. Located on Stealth Street in Livermore [thanks Stan Bunger!]

    Comment by vigi — February 7, 2018 @ 10:02 am

  3. Conservatives and libertarians have been warning about government surveillance for decades, but it took Trump in the White House to bring the liberals and progressives on board. Better late than never, I guess, but I don’t think there are enough tin hats for all of you.

    Comment by vigi — February 7, 2018 @ 11:13 am

    • Right, because liberals just sat idly by when the PATRIOT act was passed and just accepted the conservative party line that if they weren’t doing anything wrong they had nothing to worry about while libertarians were marching in the streets against this. I always enjoy your alternative facts, vigi!

      Comment by Rod — February 7, 2018 @ 2:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at