The U.S. Senate has taken a positive step and passed Bill 3111: The Faster FOIA Act of 210. This bill would establish a commission to study delays in processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the system for charging fees and granting waivers and the increased use of FOIA exemptions to deny access. In addition, it will develop administrative and legislative recommendations for addressing each of these areas. The bill made it through the Senate and is currently in the House.
Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced this bill to update the existing FOIA law that ensures public access to U.S. government records and deems the government responsible to present requested records to the public. It’s the ultimate open government law and just like any law, it needs updating and improvements. We all know how slow government can be and this bill will identify the methods to reduce delays in processing FOIA requests.
How will this affect/improve Alameda? Back in April, there was a dispute between the Interim City Manager and City Council over whether or not SunCal paid for her salary. SunCal is paying the City of Alameda through an escrow account and it was found to be paying for City staff members that attend city planning meetings. After questions were raised, the ICM revealed that she does not bill directly to SunCal and instead mostly bills to the General Fund. It looked as if the City was making a profit from the escrow account while billing to the General Fund.
Hopefully, with this new bill, we can ask for and receive the City of Alameda’s timesheets and internal emails to avoid all these speculations and find the answers.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Shine Some Sun on Alameda Public Records
Transparency. Open communication. That’s what we all want from our government. But how can we keep track of the communication between our elected officials when there is no record?
I went to make a FOIA freedom of information act request of public records in Alameda and was dumbstruck why they do not retain email correspondence of elected public officials or public employees.
Back in June 2001, the City of Alameda enacted a policy of deleting emails after 30 days. In California, the generally accepted standard is to keep any form of correspondence amongst California governing bodies for at least two years.
The California Government code says that any government record must be retained for a minimum of two years. While this regulation does not explicitly state that public emails should be retained for that amount of time, it can be interpreted through the Code.
The conundrum here is defining correspondence. Some officials in Monterey deem emails to be non-correspondent and therefore subject to deletion after a period of 30 days. Does that mean only letters that come from the post office are considered “correspondence”? Who writes letters anymore? This is not the Pony Express era.
While every email is not correspondence, our City should err on the safe side and keep public emails. These emails could be considered relevant records of government activities to the public and they should be publicly available to us.
Our laws should be updated to reflect current patterns in how government bodies work. It’s our public right to access every record and some of our City officials are keeping that away from us. Why are they deleting these emails? Where’s the transparency?
I believe the Alameda Sunshine Task Force is still in action. We need them to look into this activity and provide further clarification or propose new legislation to define email correspondence
I went to make a FOIA freedom of information act request of public records in Alameda and was dumbstruck why they do not retain email correspondence of elected public officials or public employees.
Back in June 2001, the City of Alameda enacted a policy of deleting emails after 30 days. In California, the generally accepted standard is to keep any form of correspondence amongst California governing bodies for at least two years.
The California Government code says that any government record must be retained for a minimum of two years. While this regulation does not explicitly state that public emails should be retained for that amount of time, it can be interpreted through the Code.
The conundrum here is defining correspondence. Some officials in Monterey deem emails to be non-correspondent and therefore subject to deletion after a period of 30 days. Does that mean only letters that come from the post office are considered “correspondence”? Who writes letters anymore? This is not the Pony Express era.
While every email is not correspondence, our City should err on the safe side and keep public emails. These emails could be considered relevant records of government activities to the public and they should be publicly available to us.
Our laws should be updated to reflect current patterns in how government bodies work. It’s our public right to access every record and some of our City officials are keeping that away from us. Why are they deleting these emails? Where’s the transparency?
I believe the Alameda Sunshine Task Force is still in action. We need them to look into this activity and provide further clarification or propose new legislation to define email correspondence
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Interim City Manager Out of Pocket
Apparently our Interim City Manager (ICM) isn’t getting paid enough by our city government. In the May 4th Alameda City Council meeting, a recommendation was made to approve a first amendment to the ICM’s contract. This amendment has asked for an additional $6,000 towards health benefits for the ICM.
Some background info. As negotiated, the City is not contracted to provide medical benefits to a temporary employee. The ICM was awarded a $250,000 base salary as opposed to the former City Manager’s salary of $195,000. The $55,000 difference covers the lack of benefits and puts the ICM’s total compensation slightly less than the City Manager.
So the ICM is basically getting paid the same overall salary as a full-time city manager. The approval of the additional $6,000 is buried on the consent calendar, which can simply be approved by a motion from a Councilmember. Knowing full well the City negotiated her contract without those terms, she tried to sneak it past the public on the consent calendar.
The ICM is justifying this increase by saying she won’t charge for professional development, which includes a $5,000 stipend already included in her original contract. The City defines “professional development” as functions and conferences where the City Manager can represent Alameda and further the City’s goals.
The City of Alameda allocated that money for a reason. She should be attending those types of events, not diverting funds for personal reasons.
What happens when she wants to attend a “professional development” event? She will probably justify this extra expense and sneak it in as another item on the consent calendar.
Some background info. As negotiated, the City is not contracted to provide medical benefits to a temporary employee. The ICM was awarded a $250,000 base salary as opposed to the former City Manager’s salary of $195,000. The $55,000 difference covers the lack of benefits and puts the ICM’s total compensation slightly less than the City Manager.
So the ICM is basically getting paid the same overall salary as a full-time city manager. The approval of the additional $6,000 is buried on the consent calendar, which can simply be approved by a motion from a Councilmember. Knowing full well the City negotiated her contract without those terms, she tried to sneak it past the public on the consent calendar.
The ICM is justifying this increase by saying she won’t charge for professional development, which includes a $5,000 stipend already included in her original contract. The City defines “professional development” as functions and conferences where the City Manager can represent Alameda and further the City’s goals.
The City of Alameda allocated that money for a reason. She should be attending those types of events, not diverting funds for personal reasons.
What happens when she wants to attend a “professional development” event? She will probably justify this extra expense and sneak it in as another item on the consent calendar.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Ranger Schwarzenegger Attempts to Save California's Parks
After last year’s $24 billion dollar deficit in the golden state, we’ve seen park maintenance reduction, public facility closures and even complete park closures. With more state parks than any other state in the nation, these closures are closely felt by residents. The governor promised to pump money back into the parks starting July 1, the start of the new fiscal year. Guess again.
The $100 million dollars originally promised to state park funding - brought in from oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast - is now being diverted to oil spill cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. I guess parks and oil don’t mix.
But the governor is still promising park improvements. How is that possible with a projected $20 billion state deficit for the coming year?
It is, of course, being patched-up with an age-old solution: more taxes. California State Parks executives are suggesting an $18 vehicle fee.
So now we’ll pay almost 20 bucks to visit the park with our children and grandchildren. I figure this is important to keep in mind when local governments suggest more park development. In Alameda, we see residents pushing for Alameda Point parks with undetermined sources of funding. In Irvine, we see the so-called Great Park costing the city $100,000 every month. In the Bay Area, we see Angel Island, China Camp and countless others closing down during the weekdays and cutting necessary public services.
Nice attempt Ranger Schwarzenegger. But can you suggest that local governments fix our current state of affairs before we add more expensive public amenities?
The $100 million dollars originally promised to state park funding - brought in from oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast - is now being diverted to oil spill cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. I guess parks and oil don’t mix.
But the governor is still promising park improvements. How is that possible with a projected $20 billion state deficit for the coming year?
It is, of course, being patched-up with an age-old solution: more taxes. California State Parks executives are suggesting an $18 vehicle fee.
So now we’ll pay almost 20 bucks to visit the park with our children and grandchildren. I figure this is important to keep in mind when local governments suggest more park development. In Alameda, we see residents pushing for Alameda Point parks with undetermined sources of funding. In Irvine, we see the so-called Great Park costing the city $100,000 every month. In the Bay Area, we see Angel Island, China Camp and countless others closing down during the weekdays and cutting necessary public services.
Nice attempt Ranger Schwarzenegger. But can you suggest that local governments fix our current state of affairs before we add more expensive public amenities?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
EIR “Scoping Session” for Alameda Point
Under the façade of an “EIR scoping session,” last night’s Alameda Planning Board meeting was truly just a rant and rave session.
I’m certainly not speaking out against the freedom of speech here, but what I am speaking out against is the lack of leadership in Alameda government. They don’t seem to be providing their citizens with the cut and dry facts of Alameda Point development and unfortunately the two dozen SunCal opponents that showed last night don’t have a clue what the plan truly entails.
The City has a check-in-hand that enables them to study the environmental impacts of the project, and they are passing it up. City leadership needs to keep residents on track and informed of the issues.
They need to set the stage for a successful future Alameda Point development. Let’s be realistic about traffic increase. Whether opponents rant and rave or not, there will be growth on Alameda Point; it’s the natural growth path for the city. Therefore, traffic will increase. So let’s plan it out, study the effects beforehand, and do our best to mitigate that increase with intelligent city-planning. Let’s study commercial and residential land use, let’s study the environmental effects on and off shore and let’s study how we’ll supply sustainable power to Alameda Point.
THAT’S what the EIR is for, THAT’S what the City should be pushing for. Instead, they’re getting caught up in complaints.
What kind of statement is this from Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott?
It would be great to have honest, open answers to these questions, but instead we’re getting a bunch of comments that are intended to pacify the masses.
They’re not working.
I’m certainly not speaking out against the freedom of speech here, but what I am speaking out against is the lack of leadership in Alameda government. They don’t seem to be providing their citizens with the cut and dry facts of Alameda Point development and unfortunately the two dozen SunCal opponents that showed last night don’t have a clue what the plan truly entails.
The City has a check-in-hand that enables them to study the environmental impacts of the project, and they are passing it up. City leadership needs to keep residents on track and informed of the issues.
They need to set the stage for a successful future Alameda Point development. Let’s be realistic about traffic increase. Whether opponents rant and rave or not, there will be growth on Alameda Point; it’s the natural growth path for the city. Therefore, traffic will increase. So let’s plan it out, study the effects beforehand, and do our best to mitigate that increase with intelligent city-planning. Let’s study commercial and residential land use, let’s study the environmental effects on and off shore and let’s study how we’ll supply sustainable power to Alameda Point.
THAT’S what the EIR is for, THAT’S what the City should be pushing for. Instead, they’re getting caught up in complaints.
What kind of statement is this from Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott?
“We are going to try to negotiate a [deal] by July 20. I don’t think we can say that’s going to happen, but we’re trying to make it happen,”My question is, WHY can’t you make it happen? Is SunCal doing something? If so, what? Why are we stuck? How can we move forward?
It would be great to have honest, open answers to these questions, but instead we’re getting a bunch of comments that are intended to pacify the masses.
They’re not working.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Alameda Point: SunCal or ???
SunCal’s Exclusive Negotiating Contract is up come July 20, and it appears the city staff and city council have been exploring their development options. Open space development, such as Irvine’s Great Park, doesn’t seem financially viable. Would the City begin looking for another master developer? Another local developer, Ron Cowan, has developed the Waterfront business and light industrial park on Alameda’s Harbor Bay. It has proven to be a good source of income for the city.
Now follow the coast a few miles north from Harbor Bay, and you run into the Alameda Point naval base, which has the same selling points as the Harbor Bay development (location, transit access, skilled labor base…). In 2007, the City chose SunCal Companies as the master developer to submit a master plan for Alameda Point and, once approved, move forward with redevelopment.
Now, who will take over if the City doesn’t approve the SunCal master plan? Will it matter if we substitute another developer in for SunCal? Would another developer like Cowan solve all of Alameda’s issues?
What will the Interim City Manager (ICM) propose? Technically, the ENA prohibits any negotiations with another developer until July 20. However, that doesn’t seem likely. What seems equally as unlikely is a smooth transition and new development process with another developer. The City’s track record with developers is not strong; developers have come and gone for Alameda Point and the City has been involved in a lawsuit with developer Francis Collins due to a density bonus application dispute. Also, the ICM does not seem to work well with SunCal, as referenced in the April 20 City Council meeting, and I don’t see how she will do a sudden 180 in negotiations with another developer.
Now follow the coast a few miles north from Harbor Bay, and you run into the Alameda Point naval base, which has the same selling points as the Harbor Bay development (location, transit access, skilled labor base…). In 2007, the City chose SunCal Companies as the master developer to submit a master plan for Alameda Point and, once approved, move forward with redevelopment.
Now, who will take over if the City doesn’t approve the SunCal master plan? Will it matter if we substitute another developer in for SunCal? Would another developer like Cowan solve all of Alameda’s issues?
What will the Interim City Manager (ICM) propose? Technically, the ENA prohibits any negotiations with another developer until July 20. However, that doesn’t seem likely. What seems equally as unlikely is a smooth transition and new development process with another developer. The City’s track record with developers is not strong; developers have come and gone for Alameda Point and the City has been involved in a lawsuit with developer Francis Collins due to a density bonus application dispute. Also, the ICM does not seem to work well with SunCal, as referenced in the April 20 City Council meeting, and I don’t see how she will do a sudden 180 in negotiations with another developer.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Victory in San Leandro!
The Kaiser Permanente San Leandro Medical Center is approved. In a historic vote from the City Council, the largest construction project in the city’s history can finally move forward.
The economic ripple effect is uplifting: 2,000 permanent and 3,000 construction jobs.
After five years of back and forth, Mayor Tony Santos, City Manager Stephen Hollister, and City Councilmembers approved the Environmental Impact Report and rezoning of the property for the medical center and adjacent 275,000-square-foot retail area.
The retail area drew harsh criticism from Bayfair Center, an existing retail center located near the construction site. However, Kaiser agreed to delay retail construction until the “economy improves,” or more specifically, in two to three years.
This leadership team saw the long-term benefits for the city and pushed the project forward. This is the kind of action we need to see in the greater Bay Area. Congratulations San Leandro.
The economic ripple effect is uplifting: 2,000 permanent and 3,000 construction jobs.
After five years of back and forth, Mayor Tony Santos, City Manager Stephen Hollister, and City Councilmembers approved the Environmental Impact Report and rezoning of the property for the medical center and adjacent 275,000-square-foot retail area.
The retail area drew harsh criticism from Bayfair Center, an existing retail center located near the construction site. However, Kaiser agreed to delay retail construction until the “economy improves,” or more specifically, in two to three years.
This leadership team saw the long-term benefits for the city and pushed the project forward. This is the kind of action we need to see in the greater Bay Area. Congratulations San Leandro.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
City Demands Alameda Point Election Reimbursement
Alameda Mayor Beverly Johnson cut right to the chase in her May 3rd letter to SunCal:
Here is the City Council video clip that documents the Councilmembers 3-2 vote to put the initiative on the ballot:
http://alameda.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=554
Councilmembers Tam and Gilmore even had reservations, as reported by the Island at that time:
I don’t think the Mayor and City Council can deny that they voted to place the Alameda Point Initiative on the ballot. Or can they?
“I hope we can look forward to a full reimbursement of the City’s election expenses for the failed Measure B Initiative and that there will be no further inferences that it was the City’s fault that SunCal chose to place the Measure B Initiative on the ballot.”Isn’t it the City Council that votes to place any initiative on the ballot? The statement from the Mayor contradicts that standard process, so I wanted to see for myself.
Here is the City Council video clip that documents the Councilmembers 3-2 vote to put the initiative on the ballot:
http://alameda.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=554
Councilmembers Tam and Gilmore even had reservations, as reported by the Island at that time:
“Councilmembers Lena Tam and Marie Gilmore opposed the plan, saying they couldn’t support the cost of the special election the city will have to hold for the vote.”
I don’t think the Mayor and City Council can deny that they voted to place the Alameda Point Initiative on the ballot. Or can they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
