Hiatus. Sort of.

Too busy this week to post much, but I want to mention two items.

ONE: The FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) is investigating Dr. Deutsch.  They responded to my request to look into what I see is a conflict of interest.  We all know that we need medical staff on the hospital board; that’s not the issue. What is the issue is that  without the Alameda Healthcare District (AHD) board’s annual vote to levy the parcel tax on us, the hospital could not afford to exist.  Through his practice and clinic located within the hospital walls, Dr. Deutsch earns over $200K per year.  As a board member, he has never recused himself from this annual AHD vote.  This is a serious conflict of interest.  Stay tuned; I am waiting to hear what the FPPC says, and too, what the witnesses to this conflict say in writing to the FPPC. Those witnesses are Hospital CEO Deborah Stebbins, AHD Board president Jordan Battani, and City Councilmember Rob Bonta (prior AHD board member).  They know far more than I about the dependence of Deutsch’s private practice and clinic on the hospital.

TWO:  Back to our future.  Interesting in today’s Alameda Sun, John Knox White writes about the financial instability of our city….which is exactly why so many of us are perturbed at the fiduciary irresponsibility shown by Mayor Gilmore…

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. …

Cliff notes for yesterday’s post.

“I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world.”  – Margaret Mead

Here’s the concise version of some of the things that are troubling me down at City Hall:

1. meyer nave attorney Kreisberg says ‘Mayor’ Gilmore contacted him in mid-December to discuss expected litigation when Gilmore was city council member, not yet seated as a mayor.

2. Our new mayor, in her first city council meeting ever (12/28/2010) had meyers nave attorney Kreisberg attend the meeting, held a city council discussion about hiring Kreisberg, led a vote to hire Kreisberg on the spot for Kreisberg’s advice to be given in that same meeting, took that advice, and acted on it (voting on two City Charter Officers employment conditions).

a. None of this is on the agenda for the open or closed session that night or in the closed-session the meeting report. Which means hiring meyers nave was done illegally.

b. In order for meyers nave attorney Kreisberg to provide legal counsel the instant he was hired, he had to have done research prior to that meeting, right?  And here I refer you back to item #1, above.

c. Mayor Gilmore’s behavior is called railroading:  rushing to something through quickly in order to prevent careful consideration and possible criticism or obstruction (with apologies to railfans for using this term derogatorily, but it’s the most apt term here). …

City Attorney suggests we sue the city.

Sort of. I mean, the letter I got yesterday from City Attorney Mooney basically said: so sue us.  (neener neener neener)

What’s really REALLY interesting, and in light of my post yesterday, City Attorney Mooney writes “The Council voted at the beginning of the closed session to have Eddie Kreisberg of Mayers Nave advise them during and following the closed session on issues related to the City’s Charter Officers.” Mooney’s letter is (deliberately) unclear which the closed session she’s referring to; reading the letter, it implies 12/28/2010 which would make sense because Kreisberg advised them at (and apparently before) that date, yet neither meeting shows an agenda item for discussing outhouse counsel or a vote to hire outhouse counsel at that time, as Mooney says was done. And then there’s the little fact that Kreisberg says on the record in the 1/18/2011 meeting that “Mayor Gilmore” contacted him in mid-December—a council member at the time–for counsel on the City Charter Officers matter.  If that’s true, then Councilmember Gilmore contacted meyers nave (their logo uses lower case) prior to being hired by the City Council. It’s unclear by what Kreisberg said whether he gave counsel or not in mid-December, or whether Gilmore planned to have him available for the 12/28/2010 meeting at which the Council apparently discussed and voted upon hiring mayers nave and yet THERE IS NO RECORD of such discussion or action.

SO: in the 12/28/2010 meeting, Mayor Gilmore (a) led a vote to hire outhouse counsel and (b) had preplanned to have meyers nave on hand to give advice during the meeting, (c) received advice for matters between the Council and the City Attorney (according to Mooney’s letter, this makes sense is was not related to matter between the Council and the Interim City Manager [ICM]) and (d) acted on that counsel–all in one single meeting–to remove two of the three Charter employees, all without a record of item (a) whatsoever anywhere: not in the agenda nor in the closed meeting report.  And we’re not supposed to have a problem with this?!

Note to Mayor Gilmore: a prudent and unabridged process—you know, the kind you’re supposed to provide that ensures optimum outcomes for all of Alameda?—would look like this…

“Trust me.” (v2)

Alex Gibney: “Most corrupt individuals get away with their crimes by saying ‘trust me’—like the Enron guys, for instance. You act regal and you’re not questioned.”

I published the quote above on December 11, 2010.  I published these comments too: “And it was very frustrating to come expecting real facts, real dialog, and get placating feel-good remarks” and “It was meant to disarm and deflect rather than respect us enough to have a real discussion” and “It was political shenanigans, and not the gravitas we deserve”…

On that day, I was talking about the Alameda Healthcare Board.  But today, these same words perfectly describe the City Council Meeting last night…

“It would be foolhardy…to risk doing business with the City of Alameda…”

Eugenie Thomson withdraws her proposal for contracted work to the city; why?  Alameda City Council is untrustworthy. Their recent actions have been inexcusable. They been behaving illegally and worse.  In fact, she was so incensed–watching the January 4th city council meeting from home–that she walked straight into the meeting after the public comment period had finished (11:30p), went to the podium, and interrupted the meeting to get her comments heard. I wanted to post that video here too, but the new city website only has the minutes published; there are no audio or video files of city council meetings posted for 2010 or 2011.  (!) The video is here, go to minute 3:36:00.

See Eugenie’s letter, right below here, to the the Deputy City Manager.  Long, VERY worthy read that clarifies and explains A LOT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LETTER FROM: Eugenie Thomson, P.E , Project Management Consultant, dated January 7, 2011

To: Deputy City Manager Lisa Goldman, City of Alameda

Dear Ms. Goldman:

With great dismay, I hereby withdraw my proposal to contract with the City of Alameda for on-call consulting services for Alameda Point and other citywide projects. City Manager Ann Marie Gallant and the Department of Public Works encouraged me multiple times to submit. Ms. Ann Marie Gallant was the first City Manager since the Base Closure in 1997, to fairly consider all facts including accurately identifying the constraints associated with developments with the goal to find buildable solutions with a design that would fit within our City. Her early assessment of the SunCal mega plan and financing CAPS in SunCal’s Measure B saved our City.

But now due to recent events, I am withdrawing my proposal because I cannot, in good conscience, contract with the Alameda City Council, in which I have lost all trust. . . .

What you can do:

Concerned about rash activity down at City Hall and possible violations of The Brown Act and the City Charter?

Write a letter to the acting city attorney; explain your concerns and ask her to look at the mayors actions the last week of 2010, determine what the violations of The Brown Act and the City Charter were exactly, and to do something about them. Be sure to use delivery tracking when you mail: USPS certified return receipt, UPS, or FedEx:

Donna Mooney, Acting City Attorney; Alameda City Hall, Room 280; 2263 Santa Clara Avenue; Alameda, CA  94501

Please send the county DA a hardcopy of your letter as well, delivered with tracking (the DA does not oversee, or enforce, municipal law, but the DA will step in if there’s been a Brown Act violation; I’ve been told that DA O’Malley is a Brown Act expert):

Nancy E. O’Malley; Alameda County District Attorney; Alameda County District Attorney’s Office; 1225 Fallon St. Suite 900; Oakland, Ca 94612

Gilmore’s fallen into a cognition trap and can’t get up.

“…letting our Interim City Manager go is by far the most unprofessional and stupidest decision that I have ever witnessed in my long standing career as an Executive Business Manager and almost ten years of volunteer work on three different Boards/Commissions for our city.” – Horst Breuer, resigned Chair of the Alameda Economic Development Commission, 1/5/2010

Mayor Gilmore has violated our trust and made a mess of our city government. Had she abided by the letter and intent of our laws, she would not have. Following the laws ensures an open process (sunlight) and a smooth and stable transition with newly elected officials at the helm.  Gilmore’s behavior has a deleterious effect across the board. . . . 

Unprepared, disinterested, detached, and chewing gum.

That describes a large part of what you would have observed in the mayor and some of the city council members if you were there tonight. It was pretty rude.

If you weren’t there or didn’t watch on TV, just so you know: people rocked the city council chambers tonight and schooled Gilmore.  Bizarrely, she did not seem fazed at all by the well-spoken, articulate, detailed and well-founded criticism and earnest questions (how could you do what looks so illegal, wrong, disingenuous?) from dozens of outraged citizens. Neither was she embarrassed. . . . 

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. . . .