Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

Alameda Firefighters Deny Lena Tam Allegations, Endorse Marie Gilmore for Mayor

In a release earlier this week, Alameda Firefighters Local 689 of the International Association of Fire Fighters denied that Alameda City Councilmember Lena Tam (or any other Councilmember) leaked information to Local 689 regarding the issue of Ambulance Transport Services, or any other issue. Separately, yesterday, Local 689 issued an endorsement of Alameda City Councilmember Marie Gilmore in her race to become Mayor of Alameda this November.

Regarding the Lena Tam affair, the firefighters released their chronology of events, which we reproduce below. Domenick Weaver, President, Alameda Firefighters IAFF Local 689 asked if we publish any of the documents he provided, that we “redact the contact e-mail and phone numbers for Jeff [Delbono] and I.” To that end, we have blocked-out e-mail addresses and phone numbers for Weaver and IAFF Political Director Jeff DelBono, and removed from the published file a number of supplementary e-mails that contain e-mail addresses.

Weaver doesn’t deny that Tam sent the e-mails that the special counsel to the City of Alameda Michael Colantuono documented in his allegations against her, nor that DelBono received them. Weaver writes, “We don’t deny that she sent them or that Jeff got those. It appears to us that she was trying to show her follow up to concerns she (and other council members) had regarding the issue.” He does, however, deny that his union local has “benefited from anything any council member has said to us!”

Specifically, Weaver asserts that Paramedics Plus CEO Tony Myers had already wrote and sent a letter to all City Councilmembers and Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant on February 22, 2010, copying Weaver and DelBono. This is the letter that Colantuono, in his written allegations against Tam, says that Tam referred to when she wrote to the Interim City Manager, and all City Councilmembers on February 25th, attempting to, according to Colantuono, “seek to persuade the Council to reject any proposal to remove the EMS – something the Brown Act permits her to do in open session only.”

Further, Colantuono wrote that “By using the ‘blind carbon copy,’ however, she concealed from the other Councilmembers that she was advocating on behalf of the IAFF. Thus, effectively, there was a non-public meeting of the City Council on this issue before the Council, to which only the IAFF had access.” Indeed, Colantuno asserts no wrong-doing on the part of the IAFF, but alleges that Tam violated the Brown Act by sending an e-mail about the Paramedics Plus letter to all City councilmembers.

(The February 22, 2010 Paramedics Plus letter to Mayor Beverly Johnson is one of the letters provided by the IAFF to Action Alameda News but not included in the reproduction of documents below.)

Separately, late yesterday afternoon, the IAFF announced that they were endorsing Councilmember Marie Gilmore for Mayor, citing “her leadership abilities and commitment to solving problems.”

Partial IAFF Local 689 Chrono of Events Re Lena Tam

9 comments to Alameda Firefighters Deny Lena Tam Allegations, Endorse Marie Gilmore for Mayor

  • Incredulous

    I think it’s more likely that the IAFF endorsed Marie Gilmore for Mayor because she is more malleable than other candidates.

    I watched the entired streamed video of Gilmore’s performance on the night of the Council meeting concerning SunCal. Gilmore showed that she is inarticulate, does not think logically on the fly, and that it is not beneath her to publicly ask questions which are detrimental to the city’s economic interests. She also came off as a catty bitch in the tone of voice she used towards all other women on the dais, except Lena Tam.

    And for the record, I wish people would stop posting, on Alameda blogs, that Marie Gilmore is a lawyer. The State Bar of California has no record of her as a lawyer…unless she’s holding herself out as a lawyer in a name other than that registered with the State Bar, something which is a violation of their rules.

    Marie Gilmore. Unimpressive. Alameda can do better for itself.

  • She is also guilty of “intellectual inconsistencies,” when she can rise to that level of sophistication. None of the candidates is a genius in the high-powered sense, but the outcome is more likely to be determined by ideas than by ideal connections and endorsements of questionable value. Public employee unions, these days, are not exactly in the ascendency!

  • Betty

    I was wondering if Marie was an attorney. I heard she was. Thank you for letting us know that she isn’t. I will not say what I actually think about her, but I do not hold her in high regard. She asked the strangest questions and she goes on and on and on. If the firefighters union think she is the best I must question their decision. Plus there is still time for people to file for offices. Why make the decision now?
    I was at the meeting Tuesday night and could not believe anyone with any sense would ask our city attorney what our strategy would be if Sun Cal sued the city. sun cal’s people were still in the room. Even the little guy with the big head that almost didn’t get through the door (little skippy miller).
    I don’t think we have heard the last of these guys. Alameda beware!

  • Anonymous

    GILMORE lists herself as an attorney on her website: “Marie practiced law for several years” but doesn’t say where, when or what type. Not listed at the CA State Bar website. Which should include all members and former members who have gone inactive or been disbarred.

    It was clear that she was backing TAM’s action. I would bet a nickel that TAM’s attorney said, “You want to vote? Aren’t you in enough trouble as it is?” Then they passed the baton to GILMORE.

    No one in their right mind puts your defense, or any strategy, in the public arena. Let alone an attorney. Shame on her! Just what we don’t need in a Mayor.

    I would like to know what GILMORE did when she received TAM’s blindcopy of an email, in possible violation of the Brown Act. If she called the City Attorney and reported it, that’s good. But if not, she is just as guilty as TAM, in my mind.

  • According to UC Berkeley Alumni records, and the Cal State Bar records, Marie-Elaine Lucianne Gilmore (nee Robinson) – #124907, was admitted to the bar in 1986, and as of April 30, 1990, her license went inactive. Perhaps she let it lapse, because she wasn’t practicing…. It went active again a few months later, but by Jan 1, 1992, it was inactive again and has been so since. So she practiced law for no more than 4 years. She and her husband Rodney got a J.D. from Berkeley Boalt School of law in 1986.

    Status History
    Effective Date Status Change
    Present Inactive
    1/1/1992 Inactive
    8/8/1991 Active
    4/30/1990 Inactive
    12/11/1986 Admitted to The State Bar of California

  • Anonymous

    And what was her response/reaction to receiving the blind copies from Tam?

  • Not documented, although she did evidently vote to disclose to the public the packet of allegations against Tam.

  • Incredulous

    A search of Marie Gilmore doesn’t show up on the State Bar’s member search.

    If her name was Robinson and she changed it to Gilmore, she’s supposed to notify the State Bar of the name change, if she’s continuing to hold herself out as an attorney.

    Is she hiding something, or simply as dumb as she appears at Council meetings?

  • As I’ve written elsewhere, none of the candidates are exactly what you would call “elitist smarty pants.” But some of them are more in touch with reality, if only by a hair, than others. These are the people we entrust our many millions of dollars in taxes to? Why? At this point, I think a trained monkey could be elected Mayor, but her name would not be Marie!

  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • Library To Host Creative Writing Workshop For Teens ,
  • ,