EBCitizen posted an interesting piece the other day about Fremont’s email retention policy which came under fire by Alameda County’s Grand Jury. Excerpt:
An Alameda County grand jury report released Monday strongly faulted the City of Fremont for an email retention policy that subverts state transparency laws by deleting government emails after just 30 days. It also called for the city to completely overhaul its email policy.
Cities in the state must abide by a government code requiring emails to be retained at least two years. However, in Fremont, city officials and staff are allowed to label all unsaved emails as “preliminary drafts.” In addition, they are allowed to pick and choose which emails are saved or purged. If no designation is given, according to the grand jury report, they are automatically purged after 30 days.
As a reminder, this policy by Fremont was one that the City of Alameda was relying on a few years ago to justify not producing emails during a standard public records request.
More entertaining cringe worthy audio from the Dumaguete Sister City celebration thingie.
First I will post the funny/strange part and then the context which is no less strange and cringe worthy than the punchline.
This part comes directly after the rice statement and a huge lead up about multicultural America.
Here is the first of a few audio clips from the recording of the Dumaguete Sister City ceremony. No video unfortunately.
I added subtitles, you’re welcome.
Before you watch, I noticed a lot of people on other forums in defense of Trish Spencer write things like “what’s so bad about white rice?”
Nothing is wrong about white rice, white rice is delicious. The problem of the statement is that it was proffered by Trish Spencer as an example of the Filipino influence in California, Alameda, and Alameda County. She mentions that she has many Filipino friends and the only Filipino culture example she could think up with after a very pregnant pause was eating rice.
Hat tip to vigi about this one, back to the saga of Neptune Point aka Crab Cove aka the land that EBRPD wants. Last year-ish the Feds filed a claim with the US District Court to condemn McKay Avenue which, ostensibly was under the control of the EBRPD, and so was holding up any sale of the Neptune Pointe land.
Well the decision is in from the US District Court and it is not good news for EBRPD. Of course all lower court decisions can be appealed, so it’s not clear if this is a legal battle that EBRPD and the State of California want to fight with the considerably deeper pockets of the Federal Government, but, stranger things have happened. The file is attached here and I have excerpted portions below:
Earlier this week the City of Alameda sent out a Press Release and Community Advisory about the vote on Alameda Point. And almost as soon as it went out another email went out asking that the media type folks that received it try to incorporate the revisions that would be sent out later that day. Well, the revised press release didn’t get sent out until the next day and so I thought, for funsies, I would compare the two press releases to see what was so important that a revised version be sent out even though the first press release seemed to cover what should be covered.
A side by side:
Did anyone catch the Alameda Magazine article about the new Harbor Bay Club? I guess sometimes it takes people from not within Alameda to cast a different eye on a controversial topic. I have to say, I totally enjoyed the article even though I’ve grown pretty apathetic to the whole Harbor Bay Club drama. Some highlights:
Of course, Alamedans are notoriously fickle when it comes to development. Some opposed remodeling of the Alameda Theatre, but later fell in love with it. Others were initially leery about building a new city library. These days, many are hostile to development at Alameda Point.
In November’s election, Alamedans once again applied the brakes to development on the Island, this time rejecting the pro-development impulses of then-Mayor Marie Gilmore. As part of that shift, members of the Harbor Bay Neighbors worked hard to elect two City Council members who reportedly had pledged not to support the Cowans, Councilman Frank Matarrese and Gilmore’s replacement, new Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer.
All right, this one is a doozy folks.
Not sure if everyone realizes but Alameda just became a “Sister City” to a town in the Philippines called Dumaguete. The Mayor from Dumaguete visited and everything and apparently little tokens were presented and some formal ceremony was conducted in the Council Chambers earlier this month. See photo here.
These ceremonies are typically fairly perfunctory, each official says nice things about the other town and everything is hunky dory. Except, this is Alameda we’re talking about and this is Trish Spencer, Mayor, we’re also referring to, so, naturally, not everything went swimmingly and that was expressed in what can only be called an apology letter from one of the Sister City organizers.
Highlights in clip form because I can’t cut and paste!
I don’t often link to the Alameda Sun that much anyway, it’s become a bit, tedious, but OMG, what a response from Planning Board President Mike Henneberry to Eric Cross. So just to recap, in case you weren’t following the drama, Eric Cross sent in a letter to the editor a (late-ish) complaint about the public safety contract that was approved by three of the five City Council members, including fiscal conservative Frank Matarrese. Actually, in reading it again, he wasn’t complaining about public safety in general, he was specifically just upset about the Firefighters even though the Police Department got the same deal and set up.
Anyway, Mike Henneberry decided to tackle the topic head first and — at the same time — identified one of the members of the infamous Peets Coffe Klatch which, I am assuming, no longer meets at Peets anymore.
The City Council voted to approve the Site A project in a 5-0 vote, but of course after lots of positive public speakers, only one solidly against.
Then there was this bit of snippy weirdness as captured by a play-by-play tweeter last night:
I don’t think I’m overreaching if I say that tonight’s City Council vote on Site A at Alameda Point is probably the biggest issue to come before this Council since they have been seated. The one vote which has the potential to be derailed is the vote on the Disposition and Development Agreement which requires a vote of four out of five of the City Council members. I’m not feeling particularly optimistic for Site A, but I’m really hoping that my uncharacteristically pessimistic attitude will be proven wrong by an unanimous vote. Hell, I’d settle for a four to one vote at this point, I don’t require unanimity.
If you click on the link above it leads you to a full page of all the documents that exist and that should be able to answer any question that you might have if you’re willing to do some reading. Staff is recommending that the City Council take affirmative action on all the items that are coming before them tonight, just to keep tabs there are three major votes:
(1) Adoption of Resolution Upholding the Planning Board Resolution No. PB-15-09 Approving a Development Plan for the 68-Acre Mixed Use Development Plan in the Waterfront Town Center Plan Area Referred to as “Site A” at Alameda Point and Approving a Density Bonus Waiver;
(2) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement (and Related Documents) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC (APP) for the Site A Development at Alameda Point [Requires four affirmative votes]; and
(3) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC for the Site A Development at Alameda Point.