Yes. I’m finally weighing in on last week. And it’s hilarious: now “is not the time for irresponsible claims” is the ending Mayor Gilmore wrote to her own op-ed that is FULL of irresponsible claims?! She also says: “Now is the time for dialogue and hard work to make difficult decisions…” Again: hilarious.
The Mayor continues to underperform in public and over-perform in private–creating and enacting covert strategies, disenfranchising the public–since she took office in December. In response to the budget presentation at the city council meeting last week, she produced absolutely no meaningful discussion from the dais. This was her agenda item for crissake. Where’s the “dialogue and hard work”???? (…and for crissake, no one uses “dialogue” anymore except those falsely trying to bolster the reader’s perception of their credibility; note to Gilmore: it doesn’t work.)
Was she ill-prepared? Uninformed? Unlikely. She’s been on city council for years; she knows the budget issues. Then what?!
Even now in her op-ed, she doesn’t parse data and issues, she slanders elected employees!
Based upon her mayoral performance to date, … this discussion—like the many others—appeared insignificant to her. Was it just for show? For such an important agenda item, where’s her A game?! Look at her past comments on important issues. Disarming. Distracting. Irrelevant. Non-sensical (“outside the box”). Immaterial. Invalid. Glossy generalities.
It would seem that Mayor Gilmore has yet again figured everything out ahead of time and she doesn’t need no stinking effective and engaging public dialog: she doesn’t need an informed public to share information with or glean ideas from.
The Kevins chose to attend the meeting and speak in the public section of the city council meeting. Good for them! They have our backs making some effort to counterbalance the terribly imbalanced act down at city hall.
The only way Gilmore appears to know how to create a consensus is by eliminating or weakening the positions of those who might block what she has planned (which, apparently, the public is never privy to…HUH?). Just like she did the Interim City Manager. Curiously, the reason the City of Alameda is solvent today is BECAUSE of the extraordinary work done in 2010 by the ICM that Gilmore, Bonta, and Tam so illegally and unceremoniously fired. The Kevins do good work too. Why would she slander them? Oh, right: she cannot fire them.
Does Gilmore have surreptitious plans to magically and magnificently solve for the budget, union, and development issues we face? Does she yet again have covert plans to accomplish things as she sees fit without engaging the public? If so, then she’s not representing us! She’s akin to a petty tyrant. Perhaps she’s emboldened: were her apparent successes firing the ICM illicitly in December then leading an adversely truncated hiring process for city manager not enough? Or did these methods so effectively accomplish her goals, that she’s still stuck in her cognition trap and we’re in for more of the same?
Gilmore continues to disrespect and disenfranchise the public pursuing her surreptitious tactics that are the hallmark of her short tenure as mayor so far. So The Kevins get up and make her look bad. So she retaliates. I mean, that’s what worked last year in the election, right? All those pricey negative flyers dissing Anne Marie Gallant influenced voters to vote the GilBonTam triad in. So why wouldn’t dissing the bearers of bad news work now?
Ahem. Facts. Note to Gilmore: The Kevins’ haven’t made you look bad….THE FACTS HAVE. Or rather, your very own choices have made you look bad: your lackluster, unimpressed and unimpressive behavior on the dais, your efforts to disenfranchise the public, your illicit actions to push people and things out of your way as you strive to accomplish things that are not explained to the public, understood or condoned by them, and finally slandering your way out of it. Shame on you! Slandering other elected officials?! Instead of discussing the facts?!
Oh, my bad. I forgot: THAT is the Alameda Way for the notorious few. Slander others, divide as many as possible into polar opposites and hate your opposition! Never mind the facts and the “hard work” of working together in a democracy. That would require respect, compromise, and optimization of our city’s resources, direction and services, despite–perhaps flying in the face of–political allegiances.
Well, welcome to 2011. We the residents of Alameda will no longer tolerate this.
The evidence is overwhelming that the triad now in charge of our city is biased and unwilling to enact optimizing solutions because of their political alliances and debts. So far, their work has not been in our city’s (or our hospital’s and public health’s) best interest. Tam single-handedly killed the VA hospital opportunity for our city, independently telling the VA that the City of Alameda was not interested (why? ahem; protecting an alliance, the as-is hospital, Bonta…). In fact, this was a fantastic opportunity for our city that would have provided jobs, improved healthcare, but required the hospital strategies to improve/change…it’s an opportunity we’ll now never see. (And what, pray tell, do you call that? Being “ignored by the majority? Well, that’s the GilBonTam spin. But it’s nothing short of illegal undermining of a city’s leadership and riding roughshod over our, the residents, self determination to choose/reject opportunities.) They illegally fired the ICM and cost our city $250K and rising on that issue alone. And now, they will soon be placing a minion of their political machine into the City Manager position through the sketchiest of hiring processes.
The unmitigated arrogance and unilateral behavior continues. The affable smoke screen makes it appear like our participation is valued, but look closer: we have been effectively disenfranchised. Like the un- and wrongly-informed voting blocs, few recognize this.
We can safely label this and next year as The Reign of Negative Inequity. The outcomes from the city council’s majority leadership have been and are going to be far LESS than the residents of Alameda are entitled to. Or flip that: it’s a positive inequity for those three somehow—which would explain somewhat their behavior: they are somehow getting more out of this than we can see.
Mayor Gilmore: how about this: NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR.