Rent Increase Survey

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

City of Alameda Settles Lena Tam’s Claims for Legal Expenses

Late last Friday, the City of Alameda announced that it had settled a claim with Alameda City Councilmember Lena Tam for some $47,000 in legal expenses she incurred last year to defend against charges of official misconduct.

A June 16th report from City of Alameda Controller Fred Marsh to Alameda City Council shows that the city issued a check to Lena Tam in the amount of $47,142.38 on June 14th.

The press release last Friday from Alameda Mayor Marie Gilmore said that the “City Council had voted unanimously on May 19th, 2010” to approve Ms. Tam’s claim. However, a footnote reports that Mayor Gilmore and Councilmembers Rob Bonta and Beverly Johnson voted in favor of settling the claim. Councilmember Doug deHaan was absent from the meeting, as was Councilmember Tam, who recused herself.

According to the Mayor, Manuela Albuquerque, a partner at the law firm Burke Williams and Sorensen, and a former Berkeley City Attorney, reviewed the available documents and letters related to the allegations against Tam last year, as well as additional information provided by Acting City Attorney Donna Mooney, and recommended that the City settle the claim.

The City of Alameda has stated that it will make no further comment on the matter.

11 comments to City of Alameda Settles Lena Tam’s Claims for Legal Expenses

  • Barb

    Gee and the statute of limiations has not even run yet? What if some citizen decides to sue her? Will the city pay that too?

  • DHL

    …and how much did Albuquerque’s review cost us? so that we could be ‘confident’ in paying out more money? we need a remix of what’s wrong in River City: What’s Wrong in Estuary City…

  • a94501er

    Glad this was settled … too bad it took this long to convince Beverly!

  • notmayberry

    “Wastin’ away again in Alamedaville
    Lookin’ for that lost sliver of sense
    Firefighters claim that protocol is to blame…but they know
    It was truly their fault”.
    Apologies to Jimmy Buffett.

  • Karen

    Now that we’ve paid the crook, can’t she just go away?

  • Betty

    I was so disappointed when she didn’t run for county supervisor. I was going to vote for her just to get her out of alameda.
    I think the Three Stooges had everything planned before the election.
    1. get rid of Anna Marie
    2. hire John Russo
    3. take advantage of the city for their own good.
    simple as that.
    Karen, I wished the 3 of them would go away.

  • Marie

    Ugh. The whole thing stinks. Reminds me of Bell.

  • smart voter

    Like someone just told me,
    This is just a small step in our journey, the marathon is still ahead. They have won the latest battle, but not the war. They will have a rough journey ahead , and they will trip eventually . we need to bide our time.

  • 93gobears

    The big joke in the management consultancy business is that when an executive comes up with an idea that will make him money but ultimately loose the company money he hires a consultancy firm like McKinssey and Co. to tell him exactly what he wants to hear.

    It’s astounding that people actually give credence to such advice for hire schmucks.

  • Helen Helen

    These little observations indicate some Alamedans are not brain dead. Would that more people would digest with their brains- – not their tuchus (look it up if you can’t pronounce.)

  • Queenie

    A lot of us would just kick these fools up the ladder but imagine how difficult it would be to expose them @ that level!

    A brilliant example are the folks who believe UC & the state are one-in-the-same. UC gets 3% . . . that’s right: 3% of its annual budget from the state (vs state colleges that rely the state for 95% of their budget).

    Maybe if we offered to name a street after the donor we could have gotten the $47K from a resident. It works for Cal.

  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,