Sadly.

I guess I’ve arrived.  Someone’s noticed me and is writing vehemently about me online. Hate is the true measure in Alameda, right?  Sadly.  It’s too bad that people is this city of 70,000 decide first which side they are on and then, rather than honest dissection of the issues, hate or like things and people irrationally as a group. It serves no one. And as we saw with the hospital board, can be the cause of bad policy and even harm.  Few are willing to break their chosen ranks when it’s necessary to stand up for right versus wrong, beneficial versus harmful.  Where’s the outrage and energy when things are harmful (the stroke protocol issue) and wrong (illegal mayoral activities)? These are the things everyone should break ranks for and speak out on.  These types of things do not discriminate and are personal to each one of us. . . . 

It’s true, I overstated in my post yesterday, the dire consequences of agenda item 8a tonight. But given two things, the new mayors illegal tromp through last week—yes, the mayor violated The Brown Act and our City Charter; where’s Kate Quick and the LWV’s leadership on these very serious violations?!—and the very clear, very specific agenda attachment that does not include a second Oral Communications agenda item (see below), it’s not unreasonable to assume Mayor Gilmore’s intent is not more sunshine. Her threatening behavior last week makes it reasonable to expect more of the same.

Our new mayor is an attorney with 8 years on our city council; she knows very well the laws she’s violating. And no, I did not vote for Gilmore, but even if I had, I would now have the same concerns and be engaged in civic action to force her to desist behaving illegally.

The Brown Act–our state sunshine law that prohibits secretive meetings like the meeting Mayor Gilmore created and presided over last week—and our City Charter are beloved and effective documents. Willful violations of them, particularly multiple in one week, are very, very serious.

Here’s what the city council might vote on tonight–note that the only non-agenda public comment period provided for is the 15 minutes in agenda item #4. Unless the mayor adds a tenth agenda item to this list tonight, amending this item she wrote and put on tonights meeting agenda by adding a second Oral Communications section, any vote will effectively limit us to 5 Oral Communications speakers per city council meeting:

“Subject to City Council approval , the new order of the City Council meetings
would be:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations , Special Orders of the Day & Announcements
4. Oral Communications , Non-Agenda
5. Consent Calendar
6. Regular Agenda Items
7. City Manager Communications
8. Council Referrals
9. Council Communications
10. Adjournment”

Advertisements

About Denise Lai

Alive. Swim (fly is the best). Walking with my dog (weims are the best). Life is good. Would prefer people understood negative externalities and prevented themselves from creating them. Feeling the love anyway. View all posts by Denise Lai

Comments are disabled.

%d bloggers like this: