Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 22, 2018

Leaks everywhere

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

Before we dive right into the specifics of the DA’s report around the whole Jill Keimach recording people without their permission thing.  Let’s talk a little bit about documents being leaked.   This is particularly relevant because of the Alameda Sun piece that seemed to think that the East Bay Express article about Trish Spencer’s two $50 checks was some how illegitimate because of how Steven Tavares received the information about the deposited checks.


According to Spencer, documents were somehow delivered to Tavares, not in the normal course of business via a Public Information Request. “There have only recently been Public Information Requests for these documents and staff has not yet responded,” she stated.

But of course this argument was not levied against Daniel Bornstein the first time he wrote about the topic of the Jill Keimach even though everyone knew he mist have received inside information (even documents) about the topic.   This time around someone at the Bay Area News Group definitely received the information hot off the presses and it wasn’t from the City of Alameda through a public information request since it was published initially on Friday and City Hall is closed on Friday:

Screen Shot 2018-10-22 at 5.35.35 AM

One interesting thing about this reporting of the report is this framing:

[City Attorney Janet] Kern denied Keimach’s statement that the city attorney gave prior approval to record the elected officials.

When, in actuality, both Janet Kern and Alan Cohen, a city attorney with the City of Alameda, both denied that the incident in question happened.

Anyway, apparently not only was the DA report leaked to the BANG, it was also leaked to Jill Keimach’s supporters in Alameda.  I’ll post text of the full report tomorrow.



  1. Both check-gate and tape-gate need to be cleared up immediately, as in TODAY. All the info has to be released ASAFP. People who have already voted may not be able to change their votes based on that info but the many thousands who have not yet voted strongly deserve clarity to make a rational decision. Release the tape, release the full file of check details, release it all.


    Comment by dave — October 22, 2018 @ 6:32 am

  2. Second #1 above

    When we say the District Attorney’s report was “leaked”, what do we mean? Do we have information that the DA’s report was intended to be kept secret or unknown to Alameda voters, or that a regulation or laws requires the report remain secret, (while at the same time, btw, _____ _____ supporters continue to decry Ms. Keimach’s recording as illegal)? The DA’s report concludes, “Our investigation did not find criminal liability for Ms. Keimach’s conduct.”

    The DA’s report also says, in reference to the disputed August 16, 2017 meeting that was recorded, “the meeting did concern the selection of the Fire Chief and during the meeting both Councilmember Vella and Councilmember Oddie supported and recommended Captain Weaver as the next Fire Chief.” In the interviews that Mr Jenkins conducted in his investigation, I wonder whose account of the meeting comes closest to that apparent partial description of the recording in the DA report? I wonder if Mr. Jenkins would have come to all the same conclusions had he listened to the recording.

    Comment by MP — October 22, 2018 @ 7:10 am

    • The strong possibility of a coverup in each situation is much more worrisome than any leaks.

      Comment by dave — October 22, 2018 @ 8:32 am

  3. Oddie and Vella should personally reimburse the City for the $900,000 that their extortion caper cost the taxpayers.

    Comment by John Jay — October 22, 2018 @ 7:26 am

    • Let’s stick to the facts. Jill Keimach manufactured this golden parachute. 6 out of 7 of her accusations were found to be baseless, and the one violation of the charter, Oddie’s letter of recommendation, was a technical violation of the charter at best. The report’s recommendation was not to take action against Oddie, but instead to update the charter.

      Comment by JRB — October 22, 2018 @ 8:58 am

      • if this was a real court trial by jury, rather than some half-baked “investigation” then Oddie and Vella would be GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY

        Comment by John Jay — October 22, 2018 @ 9:16 am

      • The Jenkins Report did not characterize Mr. Oddie’s letter of recommendation as a mere “technical violation” of the charter. It said “the City Charter is abundantly clear that councilmembers may not promote a particular candidate; such activity is unequivocally attempting to influence an appointment decision” and that Mr. Oddie’s letter “falls squarely the side of improper 
influence”. About the letter, Jenkins further wrote that, “Although even a pure character reference may constitute an attempt to influence, his letter was not just a routine character reference because the explicit basis for the recommendation exceeded Weaver’s character.”

        And that is only what Jenkins considered. The DA report suggests the recording of the August 16 meeting – which Jenkins did not consider – may contain additional evidence of a violation of the Charter, beyond the letter. The DA’s report says, in reference to the August 16, 2017 meeting, “the meeting did concern the selection of the Fire Chief and during the meeting both Councilmember Vella and Councilmember Oddie supported and recommended Captain Weaver as the next Fire Chief.”

        Although the Jenkins report recommended clarifying how the Charter’s prohibition against councilmembers attempting to influence the City Manager’s appointments applies to certain conduct, it did not suggest a need for clarification (much less repeal) of the “abundantly clear” prohibition on promoting a particular candidate? To the contrary, it said, “such activity is unequivocally attempting to influence an appointment decision”.

        Comment by MP — October 22, 2018 @ 9:37 am

      • Does a “technical violation at best” typically result in a million dollar hit?

        Comment by dave — October 22, 2018 @ 9:49 am

  4. A lot of this stinks to high heaven. The timing of the news seems really suspicious, timed just 2 weeks away from the election for maximum exposure, with not enough time to process for a rebuttal. It also ties into the narrative the “Yes on K” people are pushing about the city council.

    Comment by JRB — October 22, 2018 @ 8:54 am

    • Couldn’t the same be said of check-gate for Spencer? The Oddie/Vella issue is now in the hands of the Grand Jury, and their removal from office would save the taxpayers from funding a special election for recall.

      Comment by BarbaraK — October 22, 2018 @ 10:29 am

    • Cover up by??
      Jill wanted to finish out her contract! The made it IMPOSSIBLE!

      Comment by Catherine Bierwith — October 22, 2018 @ 7:28 pm

  5. Speaking of city managers . . . congratulations Mr. Nguyen!

    Comment by monday monday — October 22, 2018 @ 11:14 am

  6. The DA’s report did not exonerate anyone. It simply said there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges because there was “a reasonable doubt”. No one is innocent in this situation.

    Comment by Eyeroll — October 22, 2018 @ 11:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at