Gilmore’s Sting

How was it possible that the vote to hire meyers nave law firm was 5-0?

The **unrecorded** vote was at the beginning of the closed session on 12/28/2010, well before the third agenda item of the closed session. And that third agenda item, the one titled  “PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE”, was widely understood to be solely about the city attorney.  Why? Because Mayor Gilmore told people that it was. But it wasn’t.  Hmmm. What do we call that?  Oh, right: lying. … You know, the thing we teach our kids not to do and the thing we ourselves avoid doing so as to set a best example for them to follow?

Believing the new mayor then, one would vote to hire meyers nave, right?  In order to act against your City Attorney you can’t get counsel from the same City Attorney.  You have to hire outside counsel. So there we have the 5-0 vote.

But what an ambush!  What must that closed session have been like when deHaan and Johnson were blindsided with the reality that the concealed intent of that third agenda item was to oust Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant?  I now understand why the meeting took 5 hours.

Our city council is broken. Badly broken.  How can deHaan and Johnson work with Gilmore after this well-orchestrated ambush?  Gilmore lied to get her way. She can’t be trusted.  Well, actually, she can be trusted…to lie. And apparently, she can be trusted to conspire against fellow city council members in order to orchestrate an ambush to push through any personal agendas and vendettas.

And what of Bonta and Tam…what were their parts in this?  Did Gilmore lie to them too? Did they come to the meeting prepared to intelligently discuss everything except the ICM’s position? Or were they well prepared to discuss the ICM and ‘in’ on Gilmore’s sting?  It’s not even speculation here; all the probabilities indicate that it was the latter.

And what possible moral ambiguity underlies City Attorney Mooney’s decision to rationalize Gilmore’s corrupt behavior? Where is her legal argument that would have to correct Gilmore? For any true legal argument would. What protections for job security does the city attorney have available to her when she is called upon to do her job correcting the Mayor?  Given Gilmore’s actions on 12/28/2010, it makes sense for Mooney to be afraid to lose her job.  It’s that, or she’s a really bad attorney, or a corruptible one (by Gilmore).

In order to know what to do to fight this, we’ve all had to wait to see what City Attorney Mooney would do. She has responded to citizens’ many demands for correction of the mayor and she has chosen not to. Our only recourse now is to sue the city.  And recall the mayor.

Alamedans now know where to focus the sheer power of our appropriate and collective public outrage.

To read the comments or write your own, click on the header of this post and scroll the to bottom.  OR click on ‘x comments’ or ‘leave a comment’, below here.  You will have to login to wordpress to leave a comment; when wordpress asks you to do this, and you are setting up a new account, on that page and just to the right of the box that allows you to add a blog name, look for the words in blue that say ” sign up for just a username”, click on that and  you’ll be provided with a login-only account, no blog necessary.


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: