Update, January 3, 2011 – City of Alameda employee Christina Baines confirmed accounts of Mayor Gilmore’s attempts to put her on paid administrative leave last week, writing to Action Alameda News today, “That may have been/is her intent [to fire me]; no one has said anything to me as of yet. The Mayor called me while I was on vacation in Southern Californian and told me I was on paid admin leave as of Wednesday at about 11:45am; about 25 hours later, I received a call from the Acting City Manager telling me to report to work today at 8am.”
Sources close to Alameda City Hall describe events there this week as a “Stalinist purge” intended to get rid of employees that had any involvement in the investigation of Lena Tam, and strike fear in the hearts of employees to warn them against speaking out – for fear of losing their job – against illegal or suspected illegal activity.
At a special City Council meeting on Tuesday night, Mayor Marie Gilmore and Councilmembers Lena Tam and Rob Bonta voted 3-2 to dismiss Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant and 5-0 to dismiss City Attorney Teresa Highsmith. Councilmembers Doug deHaan and Beverly Johnson voted against the motion to dismiss Gallant; the vote to terminate Highsmith was unanimous. Technically, both Gallant and Highsmith are on paid administrative leave and will not have their contracts renewed.
The special city council meeting had been publicly noticed with one agenda item, 3-C, related to public employee discipline, dismissal or release, and was widely believed to allow City Council to deal the departure of Teresa Highsmith. Last week, then-Alameda City Attorney Teresa Highsmith accepted a job as Interim City Attorney in Barstow, California.
But one source told Action Alameda News that in Tuesday’s closed-session meeting, which began at 5:30 p.m., Mayor Marie Gilmore, after Council had dealt with the dismissal of the City Attorney, brought up the dismissal of Interim City Manager Anne Marie Gallant, and insisted on a council vote on her ouster immediately, stating, “I can’t work with her, and I want her gone, now!”
Action Alameda News was also told that the assistant to the Interim City Manager, Christina Baines, was placed on administrative leave on Wednesday, presumably for her role in the investigation of Lena Tam.
None of the sources we spoke to were willing to speak on the record and Action Alameda News hasn’t been able to independently verify the reports. We have made a public records request to the City of Alameda for a list of employees placed on administrative leave in December, but had not received a response by press time.
A statement issued by the City of Alameda yesterday announced that Lisa Goldman, heretofore a Deputy City Manager, would assume the role of Acting City Manager for several months while the City searches for a full-time City Manager free of qualifiers such as “interim” or “acting.”
So, Alameda will now be a company owned town. The company SunCal.
What will our Three Stooges at city hall do now….hire a SunCal Stooge to be city manager of course.
Happy New Year.
Sorry, your history is a little fuzzy. Stalinist purges do not include severance pay or employees on administrative leave. Notice that even her allies didn’t vote to retain her, only to keep her on until a replacement was found. But as the Eagles sang, she was “already gone” when she and Highsmith pushed for criminal charges with the District Attorney against Tam.
As far as your story goes, I highly doubt Gilmore said anything like the so-called “quote” attributed to her in your article.
Unfortunately, her name will emerge again in the Suncal lawsuit, because her remarks At an Alameda service club about Alameda developing the base on it’s own, made while the City was still in a contractual relationship with Suncal will be hard to dismiss.
Not my history, Hot R, it’s a phrase a source used to describe it. The metaphor alleged to the apparent use of fear and intimidation by Gilmore, on behalf of Tam.
And you’re wrong, Johnson and deHaan voted to keep Gallant. The vote to dismiss Highsmith was unanimous because she had effectively quit already.
As for what Gilmore said or didn’t say, I trust my sources more than I trust you.
Note also that there was only one employee dismissal item on the agenda, and there should have been two, one for the attorney and one for the Interim City Manager. And affected employees are supposed to be noticed and given the chance to be represented.
Tam has shown once again that she is above the law and a bulldog bent on vengence if you cross her. Shame DA O’Malley (Tam’s friend?) didn’t have the courgage to stop this bloodbath from being possible. Another scary part is that newly elected Councilmember Bonta simply parroted Tam without giving any of his three employees, the manager, attorney and clerk, a chance to earn or not earn his vote one way or the other. There are two sides (at least) to every story. He just proved he won’t be listening to anyone but Tam. And content to bulldog the City into his (Tam’s) will.
Gilmore has never been inclined to do research or work. She simply follows someone else’s lead. In this case she chose Tam. Not very good judgement. How could Gilmore possibly know if she couldn’t work with Gallant? What has she tried to achieve through Gallant? She is a “former” attorney. Whatever that is. But has ever been a mayor who worked with a strong City Manager sort of government before? Johnson worked with Gallant for years. Gallant saved this City’s financial butt. Not the Council. Then was asked to rescue the Schoolk District, because their manager couldn’t. Refusing to try to work with Gallant reflects a high degree of ignorance or refusal to begin the learning curve of what it takes to become a real Mayor. I just hope she isn’t like Dellums! Or maybe that would be better.
Firing underlings means that the 3 votes, Tam, her two supplicants Bonta and Gilmore, forced the new interim City Manager to place Christina Bainesher on administrative leave, or be fired herself. Any employee with professionalism or competence in the entire upper echelons of the City will be polishing up their resumes before they are sacrificed to Warrior Tam and her minions on an unchecked revenge spree. Running the City competently and effectively is obviously not high on their lists.
The way this was done violates the Brown Act and the open, transparent government that Tam and Gilmore profess to value. Which makes them liars. It’s a sad day for Alameda, and a joyous one for the Perata-developer political machine that now rules this city
I wonder – is it too early to start thinking about a recall election?
As Liz says, the actions of Mayor Gilmore and the City Council violate The Brown Act on two counts. 1. that the items to discuss 2 employee contracts was not on the agenda and therefore prevented residents from being able to speak on the topic prior to the closed session in which they were clearly intended to discuss, and 2. that the employees themselves had no representation. For a more detailed discussion of these violations, read my blog post today: NotOz.wordpress.com
http://NotOz.wordpress.com
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ActionAlameda, Alameda Buzz. Alameda Buzz said: Sources Describe “Stalinist Purge” At Alameda City Hall: Sources close to Alameda City Hall describe events there… http://dlvr.it/CQfPm [...]
It is pretty clear that what was meant by Open Government/ transparency/public imput and that ersatz committee designed to promote the same: Don’t do as we do, do as our committee pretends is important to City governance. We are covering our asses for now and trying to get elected.
When we get the votes we will do what we damn well please, regardless of public import, the law, what the citizens want, and what is best for Alameda.
I have never seen city “government” sink so low as this in all the years of watching and participating in it. We now have a city completely run by interims, with no real managerial experience, operating under the threat of do what we want, or the new fake interim city manager will fire YOU TOO!! By the way, these dictators have real jobs during the day, so are not professional municipal governors.
It is a sign of competent managers to go into a situation for a sufficient period of time, listen to all sides, evaluate it, try to correct it after figuring out where that particular manager wants things to go, talk to the offending employee, tell them how one wants it corrected, give specifics if he or she initially fails, and after a period of time sufficient for that employee to correct whats lacking, fire the employee. After 30- 90 days take appropriate action. You don’t go running in with a hatchet screaming DIE DIE DIE!!!! Is that what happened here?
So what does any expect from Bonta after he left the Hospital Board requiring that Alameda citizens get second best, and perhaps deadly, medical treatment in order to subsidize the Alameda Hospital and the Alameda Firefighters?
This is a crudely obvious purge to rid SunCal and the ever-loyal Tam of an unwanted obstruction. Here’s what the Alameda Journal had to say:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/alameda/ci_16965980
“The investigation focused on allegations that Tam leaked confidential city e-mails to SunCal Companies during talks on the redevelopment of the former Navy base.
Tam denied wrongdoing and the Alameda County District Attorney Office declined to file charges against her.
The flap led representatives from SunCal — which no longer has exclusive negotiating rights with the city over the base — TO ACCUSE GALLANT OF RAISING THE E-MAIL ISSUE AS A WAY TO SIDELINE TAM AND PREVENT THE COMPANY FROM GOING FORWARD WITH ITS PROPOSAL.
THE CHARGE WAS ECHOED BY SUPPORTERS OF TAM, who won a second term in November.”
And another quote from the Journal:
“The move to clear the way for Gallant’s departure follows allegations that she had attempted to sideline Councilmember Lena Tam as part of an effort to personally control the redevelopment of the former Alameda Naval Air Station.”
Allegations made by whom on the basis of what evidence? I don’t know of anyone making any such allegations, apart from SunCal.
Boy, did SunCal get its money’s worth. That’s one thing we can say for Tam — when she gets bought, she stays bought.
Tam will take Alameda down.
I was so sorry she withdrew from the county supervisor race. I was going to
vote for her just to get rid of her.
She broke the law and got elected anyway.
We’ll have to keep a close watch on her…I have no problem collecting signatures for a recall.
It’s telling that the first act by Mayor Gillmore, Vice-Mayor Bonta and Councilmember Tam is not only to remove the ICM but to do so in secret and in such flagrant violation of the Brown Act.
Instead, we now have temporary staff around Alameda, no transparency, and conflicts being resolved in a way that shows contempt for the majority of Alamedans who voted against Marie Gillmore and SunCal, while a 15 – 36 % minority gloats.
How is it that there is a quote about what happened in closed session? It is forbidden to share such information. Ms. Gallant’s ICM contract is up on March 31st. It says, in part, that if it is not going to be renewed, she must be given 90 days notice. She was given 90 days notice of the Council’s intent and put on paid administrative leave. The action I believe did not precude her from applying for the permanent CM position, which will be a totally different contract; it just made it clear that the Council intends to hire a permanent City Manager as soon as possible. The complaint about so many interims is of her making. We now have no planning director, no finance director, no economic development director and interim police and fire chiefs. It was the City Manager’s decision to not fill these positions and take upon herself the direction of these departments. I think it is pretty insulting to say that both Marie Gilmore and Rob Bonta have no mind of their own and are being forced to make decisions by Lena Tam. they are all smart, well educated people and I believe they make up their own minds. Demonization is a vile road to take, and never ends up in a happy place.
Kate,
You’re right – my sources should be careful. If they aren’t friends with the District Attorney like Lena Tam, the D.A. might investigate them. Or maybe Lena just proved to everyone in Alameda that it’s ok to leak closed-session meeting details?
Tell us, Kate, how is it that John Knox White – who Lena Tam was alleged to have leaked closed-session information to, which was documented in the investigation of Tam, able to write a detailed article about what happened almost immediately after the meeting was over?
Tell us, Kate, why isn’t the League of Woman Voters – champions of transparency – all over Mayor Gilmore for what looks to be another violation of the Brown Act, as documented here by other participants? Why aren’t you, Kate, and the LWV, jumping all over Mayor Gilmore and Tam and Bonta for apparently conspiring behind closed doors to spring a trap on the Interim City Manager, and call for a vote on her dismissal, even though the item wasn’t properly agendized?
Alameda is certainly in the spotlight – no pun intended – as transparency of government in Alameda bites the dust. I don’t mind interim appointees, but I do mind the actions taken by Gilmore, Bonta & Tam when the ink on their oath-of-office hasn’t dried. I also have no time for Ms Quick who comes to the Council’s defense as she was on the chain of BCCs at the crux of Gallant’s complaint. If there was no intent other than a 90 day notice to Gallant that her contract would not be renewed, it could have waited until the regular session set for 1.4.11.
Gilmore is beginning to resemble Lady MacBeth; any day now we’ll hear an echo “Out, damn’d spot! out, I say!—One; two . . .”
Yes, please Kate go back to where you belong, the sanctity of the League of “Women” Voters where you can continue to receive confidential emails from Tam in perpetuity. If you don’t think that was wrong, wrong, wrong, you have absolutely no concept of fairness and openness in government. You are giving “Women” a bad name!
And Gilmore claiming she is “former” attorney so she doesn’t have to know even the basic law set forth in the Brown Act.
So what does this make Bonta – an attorney who works in the SF City Attorney’s office – which advises the SF Board of Supervisors on compliance with such inconveniences as the Brown Act? Stupid, ignorant, or out right criminal?
I’ll bet Johnson – a real attorney familiar with the Brown Act- just sat there laughing to herself at these three Bozos. Curly, Larry and Moe couldn’t have done worse. These three were totally enabled by our lackluster DA, another “Woman” not helping the cause of Womanhood, or humanity.
As a taxpayer I am outraged that these three have broken the law, and done so in a way that makes public pensions and employees getting them even worse. We now have three additional employees entitled to sit home, watch Oprah and get paid with our limited tax dollars! Doesn’t anyone think on the Council any more? Why not let these employees do their jobs, document any failures, and take appropriate action after a short time, like March? Not only are theses councilmembers/Mayor mentally lacking, they are arrogant. They have been empowered by morally lacking persons like Kate Quick who think it is not a breach of Tam’s fiduciary duty to the citizens of Alameda for Kate Quick to get confidential emails, because Kate Quick is so smart she knows what is best for everyone in Alameda. She may be able to fool those in the League of “Women” Voters, but not the rest of us. We are not so stupid, have higher standards, and have the courage to tell someone like Quick to go tell it where the sun don’t shine. Which is obviously on the new city Council. Get thee to Do’s place or the Island, Quick. Your comments can’t be taken seriously until you open your emails up to the public. Let us see the extent of the emails from Tam that you are hiding. Those forums either don’t care or have a private agenda as well. Oh that’s right, they did get confidential Tam emails. So they do have something to cover up. In all honesty, let’s do a complete disclosure here. Anyone who comments about the Council, who has received confidential emails from Tam, please be honest enough to admit it before you begin your comment.
The basic legal foundation for Alameda is its Charter. The wisdom of our forefathers in writing the Charter shows their belief that firing someone too quickly after assuming office is so damaging to the good of our city that it was prohibited.
City of Alameda Charter Sec. 2-2 states:
“The following offices are hereby established and the incumbents thereof shall be appointed or removed by a vote of a majority of the full Council: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk.
During a period of ninety days immediately following the date of installation of any person newly elected to the Council at a regular or special municipal election or of any person newly appointed to the Council, the Council shall take no action, whether immediate or prospective, to remove, suspend, request the resignation of, or reduce the salary of, the incumbents in the aforementioned appointive offices.”
So it appears Harvard lawyer, Councilmember Bonta has made a decision that putting someone on paid administrative leave and sending them out of their office does not constitute “Removal” and therefore does not violate the Charter. Hope he practices in the employment portion of the SF City Attorney’s office or in addition to paying highly qualified people to not work, we undoubtedly now face potential legal challenges by these maligned employees. Arrogant and ignorant are two words that keep coming to mind.
Of additional use for voters:
Sec. 20-1. “The holder of any elective office of this City may be recalled from office at any time by the qualified electors thereof, provided he has held his or her office for a least six months. The provisions of this article are intended to apply to officials now in office, as well as to those hereafter elected.”
Can papers be taken out for recall before 6 months, if the election will not take place until that six months is up? This is important as Adam Gillig points out above, because we now have a City Council that clearly says one thing about wanting open government and complying with applicable laws, and does the exact opposite.
Unless keeping Ms. Quick and John Knox White on Tam’s email list for confidential reports constitutes “open government”. Quick certainly seems to be on the inside here, she has all knowing explanations for everything. The League of Women Voters, “champions of transparency” if they truly are such champions and not self-interested hypocrites, should be embarassed.
Thank you Hot Tea Party.
I think all of us have had to work with someone that “I can’t work with her”,
Well dear Marie….I have found that if that person is doing a good job and deals with her responsibilities you learn to work with her.
Ms. Mayor you have a lot of growing up to do. Be an adult and govern for the citizens of Alameda, not your pals. It time to leave immaturity at the door Marie, you have a lot on your plate…maybe more then you can handle. Oh that’s right we have a very reliable vice mayor to help you.
I missed it Betty. Who is our very reliable Vice-Mayor?
I believe Betty was being facetious. She’s referring to Rob Bonta, Vice Mayor.
Must be why I missed it. I am still wondering why he missed the Charter provision prohibiting firing/removal for first 90 days. Maybe the case law interprets it in a way that he thinks he can get away with it. If this is the way he is going to “set policy” by agreeing to fire not only two of his three direct employees, but to force the new ICM to fire one of her underlings, we better brace for SUNCAL, not matter what words pour out of their mouths.
You’re assuming that the mayor and some of the council members told the new ICM to fire an underling. The way I heard it (not yet confirmed facts, but my sources are pretty reliable): Mayor Gilmore herself phoned an employee and fired her. Then, upon learning that mayors can’t do that (I wonder how that happened—who educated her?), had a city employee phone the fired person and rescind the firing, asking her to return to work on Monday, 1/3.
Did MMG not pay attention these last few years on the city council? She apparently did not watch and learn. Her actions just in her first week in the mayor’s office show a willful ignorance of her job and its purview and limitations. The only reasonable explanation is arrogance, audacity, and ignorance. As she’s been on city council and has been elected mayor, she cannot use ignorance as an excuse—no way, no how.
Of course since the Brown Act explicitly protects people from discipline for investigating possible violations, the city is unlikely to be able to carry out any kind of action without a lawsuit. The irony is that the action was taken during a special meeting closed session that violated the Brown Act (since each potential disciplinary action should have been a separate agenda item).
this is more proof that Marie gilmore, despite all her years on counsel, is in way over her head and dosen’t understand the difference between a ‘strong mayor’ form of government and a ‘strong city manager’ form, and doesn’t realize which type of city she’s in.
the first example was her (and lena tams) apparent astonishment that the city manager could alert the authorities to suspected wrongdoing by elected councilmembers.
shes obviously clueless and its funny to see her flub so spectacularly in her first real official meeting as mayor
Innocent until proven guilty. And then what? A slap on the hand if she does it again? Probably. We need to demand that the DA send out a notice to MMG warning her that she acted illegally and require her to reverse her actions in last week’s closed session. Everyone: please write Alameda County DA Nancy E. O’Malley with your formal complaints and demands for action:
Alameda County District Attorney’s Office
1225 Fallon St. Suite 900
Oakland, Ca 94612
Despite professed allegiance to sunshine, MMG clearly embraces a culture of secrecy coupled with an arrogance that expects to avoid scrutiny. #FAIL
DHL: I assumed that the Council collectively “requested” the new ICM to fire the underling as that is the only way it can be done legally. It is up to the ICM as to whether or not she would actually do it. I assumed that they simply started threatening the newest ICM and were going to work their way down the line until they got someone who needed their job so badly they would forego integrity and substitute the Council’s “requests” for good management.
The City Charter sets forth the basic law upon which the City is based. As a city based on a unique Charter, Alameda differs from General law cities and other Charter cities as well. The Council, pursuant to the Charter, sets policy using its three employees, the Manager, Attorney and Clerk. These employees implement the policies and thereby govern the City. We do not have a strong mayor form of government. The Council does not have hands on management. They can even be prohibited from speaking to employees if the City Manager, Attorney and Clerk, find the Councilmember’s actions to be in excess of information seeking communications. The above cited portions of the Charter show, the Council has severe limitations on what it can do. To exceed these limitations constitutes malfeasance and a basis for removing that Councilmember or Mayor from office. And not by the District Attorney. By the citizens.
If Mayor Gilmore after having sat on the Council for years, never read or understood the Charter enough to know what form of government we have, she is seriously lacking in what it takes to be on the Council, let alone the figure head for our City. I hope the City employee who was fired had the sense to tape record the call or message. And to speak to an employment/torts attorney before returning to work. Under certain circumstances tape recording telephonic communications can be a crime. However if one is recording a crime or malfeasance by an official, that may be a complete defense to any prosecution, as one arguably becomes an agent of the police. If one starts to leave a phone message and the caller picks up and talks but continues recording, that is permissible as the one leaving the message to begin with, has no real expectation of privacy.
This just gets worse and worse. Not only arrogant, but idiotic uninformed poor management arrogance. What do they teach at Harvard and Boalt law schools now days? I guess you can’t teach common sense or the work ethic. Give us a hard working barber any day instead of these clowns.
When Gilmore was seated as Mayor on 12/21, here’s how she started her first meeting: She said something like, “Oh, the room is filled. There’s an overflow room where some people can watch the swearing in. Oh, but I guess it’s ok for now.” Not even out of the gate, and she was skirting rules and regulations.
Her main funders and supporters (firemen) were in the audience.
In the past, the firemen were the ones who told the standees to go to the overflow room. Now that they’re clearly working for each other, they let things slide.
Wait till she calls one of them up and trys to fire him or her.
Thanks Barb. Have incorporated your information above into today’s blogpost (http://NotOz.wordpress.com).
Maybe the city council should read our charter just like our congress is going to have the constitution read to them. I don’t understand with our “money situation” why we pay people not to work. Our city manager has a contract until march and she should work until march. To our Three Stooges…get over it. Start acting professional…..and stop embarrassing the people that voted for you.
And maybe you should read to city charter….you could learn something.
Not sure the people who voted for them really expected too much, except to do their absolute best to re-instate SUNCAL. This trio is simply not following either the spirit or literal interpretation of the Brown Act or the Charter. They are blowing off the work of the Sunshine Committee. All three would be well advised to hire competent legal counsel after this fiasco. As would any employees who have to deal with such arrogant and unenlightened persons.
In addition to violating the Charter by acting at the first possible moment instead of waiting the 90 days, this Council has proven that it is cruel, mean spirited, arrogant, unprofessional and full of themselves. Nothing they have done was in the best interest of Alameda or Alamedans.
The last sentence from “Anon” say’s it all.. “Nothing they have done was in the best interest of Alameda or Alamedans”. It disturbs me to see right off, the three stooges violated the City Charter. What’s next ? Just think about Bonta only being in office 1 week and to take such measures against our main city official is outrageous. AMG has protected this city from the disasterous Sun Cal issue and then let go with such disrespect is unbelievable. To show your feelings, I suggest to attend the first Council meeting on Tuesday and voice your opinions, at best it will let them know “Big Brother is watching”
These people do not care if anyone is watching them. They are so arrogant and or ignorant they believe they can get away with anything they want. Charter? Who needs to read the charter? Recall not only Stalin, but Hitler. Their personal agendas were not well reasoned, but simply directed in a self-preservationist purge and nihilist programs. If anyone in Alameda believes that these three are not going to repay SUNCAL for the thousands of dollars spent putting their brutal and uncaring souls in office, think again. By the time they hit voters with their follow-up blows to Alameda’s well-being, SUNCAL will be so well entrenched and Alameda will not ever be able to break free.
In the past, people got uncomfortable with my questioning the bonafides of Marie Gilmore as a lawyer, as well as why she’s using a different name, as a public official, than she uses with the State Bar.
I haven’t said anything about Rob Bonta, though I am uneasy with the concept of a lawyer who went to a top notch law school (Yale) not having a well paying job in the private sector. Frankly, most lawyers are in big-city City Attorneys’ offices because they can’t get, or couldn’t hold a better paying job elsewhere. The same is true of most women lawyers who go on inactive status a few years after passing the bar exam.
That said, the Brown Act which is much discussed, and which applies to charter cities like Alameda. Here’s what Government Code Section 54957.1, a part of the Brown Act, says about announcing the non-renewal of an employee’s contract:
“(a)(5) Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the
resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee in closed session pursuant to Section 54957 shall be
reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is
held. Any report required by this paragraph shall identify the title
of the position. The general requirement of this paragraph
notwithstanding, the report of a dismissal or of the nonrenewal of an employment contract shall be deferred until the first public meeting following the exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any.”
As a result, it looks to me that the two “well educated” lawyers on the City Council blew that one, at least as to announcement that the Acting City Manager’s contract will not be renewed. They were supposed to have waited until their first regular meeting to make any announcement. (Yes, the rapid communication to John Know White of the outcome of the meeting was also a violation of that section.)
The fact that they directed the new Acting City Manager to take disciplinary action against another city employee, or that the Mayor took it upon herself to do so, shows they (or Gilmore) violated another part of the Brown Act, Section 54957:
“(b)(2) As a condition to holding a closed session on specific
complaints or charges brought against an employee by another person
or employee, the employee shall be given written notice of his or her right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session
rather than a closed session, which notice shall be delivered to the
employee personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time for
holding the session. If notice is not given, any disciplinary or
other action taken by the legislative body against the employee based on the specific complaints or charges in the closed session shall be null and void.”
My conclusion is that Alameda’s voters have elected three people who, so far, have shown that they are “legally retarded”. (I put Tam in this category because she went to college and can read English, so she is chargeable with reading and understanding the Brown Act which governs her conduct as a City Council member, and as an employee of a public agency.
Though it’s too late to do much about it, it would be enlightening to know the real details of Gilmore’s and Bonta’s employment histories, in terms of getting and keeping jobs commensurate with the quality of the law schools they went to (Boalt and Yale).
Too often minority law students skate through law school, get hired by law firms’ hiring partners who are charmed by their b.s. (despite mediocre grades) and who feel obligated to fill a quota. The minority lawyers work for law firms for a few years, and then get fired by their law firms because the quality of their legal work is so bad the law firms cannot justify keeping them employed on a cost/benefit basis.
Alameda’s voters have the right to expect that the quality of decision making by Alameda’s Council, from a legal point of view, will at least live up to the standards set by graduates of John F. Kennedy School of Law, which is ranked, nationally, as mediocre at best.
RE: Anon’s comment “If anyone in Alameda believes that these three are not going to repay SUNCAL for the thousands of dollars spent putting their brutal and uncaring souls in office, think again.”
I am very worried that ICM Gallant and CA Highsmith are critical witnesses as to the chronology of what happened in the relationship with SunCal. Will those two be willing to devote the hours and hours required to meet with the City’s attorneys and to be deposed in order to defend the City’s decision making? Will the City Council be so foolish as to refuse to pay them for their time doing witness work?
It is clear to me that if the city has to pay money in settlement with SunCal, or if the city has to pay a money judgment for SunCal’s damages, that Bonta and Gilmore will be directly at fault. There is nothing more dangerous to the economic well being of a city, county or company than a “bad lawyer”.
Seems like Acting City Manager Goldman is pandering to her new bosses, without paying attention to the Brown Act. Take a look at her 12/30 press release at: http://www.alamedapost.com/2010/12/30/city-fires-gallant/
After reading that press release, re-read Brown Act Section 54957.1(a)(5) above.
Why is it so hard for high level public employees, let alone elected officials, to comply with laws which are written in plain English?
everyone knows that lisa goldman is a simpering little sicko-phant…
In addition to violating the Brown Act, these incredible clowns violated the clear mandate of Alameda’s own Charter, by acting within 90 days. That Charter requirement was included so that successful candidates who have undergone whatever motivations caused them to get up the gumption to run for office, and the bitterness that campaigning can sometimes breed, could not satisfy their need for blood immediately. New Councilmembers would take the time to learn what their three employees actually do, and what it takes to manage a City with a Strong City Manager government. (Forget law school, Gilmore missed the 12th grade)
When we fired City Manager Bruce Rupp, it was months after telling him what the Mayor/Council wanted and trying to work with him. Finally it was clear that all our efforts could not overcome the financial benefits he was gaining for his father-in-law who was a VP at HBIA. So he was terminated. The League of Women Voters Quick et. al. complained about how terrible Chuck Corica was, how draconian. His Sicilian nature was more foregiving, human and understanding than this current coup funded by SUNCAL.
During those months we all learned what we didn’t want and did want from a manager. Then we used a qualified and expensive executive search firm, and reviewed over 100 candidates before hiring from within. It took months. The result was Bill Norton who was one of the best City Managers ever. He has been recalled time and time again for Alameda and other cities on an interim basis because of his independence and ability to do the job.
The only person who has the potential to exceed Bill’s skill level and abilities is Ann Marie Gallant. She has such a fantastic financial background and great managerial skills, that it will be hard if not impossible to replace her. For someone to say they couldn’t get along with someone of her quality and professionalism is disingenuous. Ann Marie would have been able to get along with Gilmore. It is clearly Gilmore who has the problem, putting her own inadequacies and inexperience ahead of what is best for the City.
What we have now is someone who needs her job so badly, that she will never have the integrity to stand up the this wild pack of bulldogs in clown suits. To allow the Mayor to call up and fire one of the City Manager’s employees, does not speak well of Goldman. It says she will be a rubber stamp, with no need to be competent, because it really is not about her management. It is about their arrogance and what they think constitutes professional management. And what SUNCAL tells them to do. No one of the three have shown they care one whit about this City. The speed at which Knox and Quick are getting their emails from Tam shows that Tam learned nothing about humility when one makes a mistake or has a close call. I am sure that Pat Keliher of SUNCAL is still getting his direct Tam emails too. No reason not to. She got away with it after paying $44,000 dollars to buy off prosecution, which she now demands, from city tax dollars and will receive from Bonta and Gilmore. (I am sure the SUNSHINE TASK FORCE will OK the raising the limit to $44,000 in order to make Tam happy). Keeping highly paid employees on the books doing nothing, at a cost of nearly $100,000.00 to play a legal game of looking like they were not “Removed” is risky B.S. The non-compliance with the Brown Act and Charter, and the tortious interference with these employees professional reputations, seriously opens the City up to further liability. I know some really good local attorneys in that field, so they should call. And the search for replacement managers is going to run the City another $100-250k next year.
In response to the question as to why it is so hard to comply with laws written in plain English, the “OUT” door was still swinging when Goldman was offered the temporary position. And the City Clerk writes the agenda announcements based on what she is told by the Mayor. We can bet that Goldman is sending her resume out like crazy now. Could it be that the Mayor and Bonta were so drunk on their newfound power, that reading the Charter or complying with the Brown Act exceeded the level of their understanding. And of course Tam has no need to obey the law, so why read it? And the City Attorney already heard them sharpening their sword.
Those who want to go to the Council meeting to express your dismay, don’t bother. It will fall on deaf ears. Better to spend our time figuring out what Ann Marie Gallant and Theresa Highsmith would have done to avoid SUNCAL’s takeover.
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/franklin-to-female-espner-sweetcakes-a-hole-29388
We fired Bruce Rupp in an open session after letting speakers go on for an hour on both sides. Everyone was allowed to speak for 5 minutes on eveyitem. SO after creating this SUNSHINE COMMITTEE and listenting to its input, the Council is going to restrict input even further. “Don’t do as I do, do as I say.”
Get ready to unWelcome back SUNCAL!!!
What a wonderful & amazing forum! I sat on the Planning Board w/both Marie Gilmore & Beverly Johnson:what a difference in the paths each has taken! Barb, I agree w/all your well-documented comments.(unlike the inaccurate hyperbole of KQ:blaming AMG for 5 major city employee vacancies.Really,Kate?). You’re right: MG should be thoroughly familiar w/our City’s government by now. It seems to me schizophrenic that Bonta works so prominently for SF while elected to office/living here. The curtailment of Alameda “Hospital” services while he was on its board is telling. He does appear to be a rubber-stamp. Tam?Nuff said. There appears to be adequate grounds for a RECALL effort. LET’S DO IT. Remember whenever SunCal seems to have shot itself in the foot, it grows another foot.
I think SUNCAL is more of a hydra.
We can put efforts into bringing writs, seeking injunctive relief to teach these clown lawyers what the law is, in order to obtain enforcement of the Charter and Brown Act. All we may accomplish is to create more legal fees paid for with City funds for both our wins, and their defense ($44,000 for Tam alone already). Forget having nicely paved streets and parks. As real and competent attorneys tell prospective clients before engaging in litigation, “There are no guarantees as to the outcome, even if you are right and the law is on your side.” Add to that “Principle is expensive”.
The problem is that these 3 are a disaster as long as the speak as one. Remember Gilmore was blindcopied emails sent by Tam to Mayor Johnson and never complained or said NO NO NO. Instead, We are for Open and public government – just see John Knox and the SUNSHINE BOYS- we tell them everything!!! Now they have perfected the art of leaving the public out of the loop and with the blessing of DA O’Malley. Just email each other, set up the action for the meeting and go do it. No one can predict what damage they will do next because they will not seek public input on critical issues if they don’t want to. They don’t care what the citizens think. 75,000 people couldn’t possibly need more than 15 minutes to tell Gilmore, Tam and Bonta what they need to hear before deciding what is best for Alameda.
They will continue to say one thing and do another regardless of the law. Then words that come out of their mouths will be enforced by even more tax dollars paid to employees who know that to do otherwise, will earn them immediate termination.
Even if these Bozos were to apologize en banc and promise never to do it again, what would that mean when Pat Keliher and SUNCAL come back to town demanding payment on their chits?
[...] Baines was interviewed. She has confirmed the story: Mayor Gilmore directly phoned Ms. Baines, ICM Admin., last week and [...]
Please say it ain’t so. No one who has ever sat on the City Council, appointed or elected, has ever been that ignorant of how the City is run. See what SUNCAL bought us. Really scary folks. If the new ICM wasn’t afraid for her life, professionally and fiscally, she would have told the Mayor never, ever to talk to one of the ICM’s employees again. What good is the new ICM if she can’t defend her own employees from the self-appointed hit squad leader? Think of the emotional damage that Gilmore illegally caused this poor person while acting as the figurehead of Alameda, our “Mayor”.
Who are these “sources”? Your site alongwith AlamedaPost is fast becoming a joke.
James: what the hell? Christina Baines reporting her first hand experience of Mayor Gilmore unequivocably and egregiously violating our City Charter? The 12/28/2010 agenda and the subsequent closed session meeting report which proves Gilmore’s multiple violations of The Brown Act? This is all very real and very very serious. Do you not understand the gravity here?
James: Go read John Knox White as he pretends to have investigated and is reporting his results, when he apparently is still on Tam’s direct email list. (As are Quick and probably Pat Keliher of SUNCAL) I love his well researched (not) legal opinions as well. Someone should tell him that practicing law in California without being a member of the bar is a misdemeanor. I just checked, he isn’t. Nor is Kate Quick, Lauren Do, or Michele Ellson.
Beverly Johnson is a successful and actually honest attorney. Rob Bonta is a very successful (according to his campaign literature) Yale law school grad/attorney who works in the SF Attorney’s office. Doing who knows what. Too bad he apparently didn’t read the Brown Act as part of his SF job, or our Charter before taking office.
Wow Vania. let’s review your “charges” against Gilmore. She is not using her “real name” with the State Bar- very sinister….She is a “minority” lawyer who was “let in” but wouldn’t have qualified anyway…she is a “woman” who didn’t practice law because she didn’t have what it takes…What about her degree from Stanford? Was that also tainted by her minority status?
Didn’t you forget to attack Bonta for being the son of migrant Filipino workers? He probably got into Yale based on affirmative action as well as his lame job as “only” a SF city attorney, right?
Please consider that some people want to actually help their communities, or do you still persist in fighting the Civil War? And we don’t charge people with being “retarded” legally or otherwise in the 21st Century. That along with the use of the “N” word, literally or figuratively as you have done should not be part of civilized dialogue.