Blogging Bayport Alameda

March 9, 2018

Meeting managed

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

And…there’s another vaguely worded Closed Session meeting today at 1:30 p.m.:


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)

Which is probably going to be about that report about City Manager gate? Fire chief hiring gate? Whatever.

Hopefully what will come out of this meeting is enough people voting to release the damned thing to the public.  Figures that if someone feels confident enough that the material in the report absolves whatever has been alleged we should all be able to judge for ourselves based on the information in the report.

It would be helpful to know, if that motion is made, which Councilmembers voted for or against releasing the report.

In other news the Open Government Commission met on Monday and, amazingly, the City Councilmembers have managed to appoint representatives that are truly representative of who they are as policymakers.

There were some good recommendations that they made to help move the City Council agendas along, but inexplicably — despite not being on their agenda for discussion — the Open Government Commission decided that they would recommend to the City Council to eliminate the “stick” that would force more meetings if the City Council went over their 11 p.m. ending time too many times.  The logic, proffered by a public speaker, was that if public speakers wanted to speak then it would be better for them to wait until midnight than wait until 11 p.m. and be told their agenda item wouldn’t be heard.

Except the not super late night ending times was not just for public speakers but rather because it’s unreasonable for people with jobs and families to be expected to stay up until 2 a.m. to pay attention to policy making by their local government.   While the speaker may have the luxury to wait out the City Council, I would guess a lot of other people simply do not have that luxury.  If we’re talking about policy making for all people in Alameda and not just those who don’t have to wake up at 5:00 of 6:00 a.m. to make a living to pay for the privilege of  living in Alameda, then perhaps we should set up reasonable ending time for our, ostensibly, public meetings.



  1. So if the report comes back with actionable offenses by Oddie & Vella, what happens? Do the other three council members vote on their removal? Or is it just automatic? If automatic, how is it enforced?

    If they are removed is there a special election now, or an add on the November ballot, or interim appointments?

    Comment by dave — March 9, 2018 @ 6:21 am

    • So if the report comes back with no actionable offenses by Oddie & Vella, what happens? Do the other three council members vote to apologize, does the City Manager say oooops, I was wrong. ? do the news papers print retractions of thier articles and editorials? Just sayin.

      Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — March 9, 2018 @ 10:03 am

  2. And how would a report outlining such offenses expose the city to legal action? Can the IAFF sue over an independent investigator’s report?

    Comment by dave — March 9, 2018 @ 6:39 am

    • See Leland Traiman’s commentary on the scandal in this week’s Alameda Sun. He pretty much nails it.

      Comment by vigi — March 9, 2018 @ 10:00 am

  3. The most recent case of this (interference) in the Bay Area was prosecuted as a public offense (the D.A.) not by way of impeachment. I don’t know if city councils generally have a power of impeachment or expulsion. I don’t think so. It’s not in the Charter. The precise charge of the private law firm investigating and generating the report is probably a privileged matter, but whatever it is, it is not to decide whether anyone remains in office or not.

    Comment by MP — March 9, 2018 @ 6:54 am

    • What/where was that recent case?

      Comment by dave — March 9, 2018 @ 8:28 am

      • Mountain View – Mario Ambra

        Comment by MP — March 9, 2018 @ 8:54 am

  4. Plus the fire chief should hit the road.

    Comment by Jack — March 9, 2018 @ 7:24 am

  5. Many causes for meeting going late. Politicians will be politicians, but some cut to the chase faster than others. I wish that some would work out of the stretch more, instead of the long wind up that meanders through childhood, professional experiences, and various other digressions before finally working up to pitching their rationale for some vote.

    Comment by MP — March 9, 2018 @ 7:46 am

  6. The fact that the vote was unanimous is interesting. In past my experiences with a former School Board, she was highly skeptical of all the legal issues presented by outside lawyers.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — March 9, 2018 @ 10:10 pm

  7. post #1, now what Dave?

    Comment by JohnP.TrumpisnotmyPresident. — March 10, 2018 @ 3:13 pm

    • No idea. To say the least, this is a strange turn.

      Comment by dave — March 10, 2018 @ 3:43 pm

    • lawyer up.

      Comment by Jack — March 10, 2018 @ 6:14 pm

  8. Jill Keimach has been a terrific City Manager and this situation saddens me. We deserve to hear the full results of the investigation as soon as possible.

    Comment by Karen Miller — March 12, 2018 @ 9:41 am

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