Alameda Point Plan B

Well, here we go again. Alameda City Council is starting to pencil out a Plan B for redeveloping Alameda Point. It's a bit exhausting even to watch the council go through the same tired process, probably only to arrive at the same reality at the end of the day.

True to form, each Councilmember has a different opinion regarding future development plans. Marie Gilmore wants more public input, Lena Tam wants a secure source of financing, however, the most alarming position comes from Frank Matarrese.

Matarrese has actually created a proposal for the development of a nonprofit corporation that would head up the Alameda Point revitalization process and focus on job creation, not housing. It’s a bit early for a full-blown proposal just days after the vote…

Suncal also seems to think so. Pat Keliher, Suncal’s Alameda Group Manager, claimed that the City of Alameda was working on this Plan B while still being paid to do work for Suncal. The Island’s Michele Ellson reports that “the Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant gave a 2009 Chamber of Commerce breakfast where she reportedly said the city had a Plan B for developing Alameda Point.”

Councilmember Doug DeHaan reacted vehemently to the accusation stating, “I’m just appalled that someone says we’re doing secret plans in the back room. I don’t think that’s the case.”

Well Mr. DeHaan, if the deciding party (i.e. the City of Alameda) claimed they had a Plan B back in 2009, then immediately came out with a new redevelopment proposal after the vote in 2010 after kicking out the old developer, the cards would be stacked against you, don’t you think?

Let’s just see how effective this nonprofit corporation creation will be. Personally, I applaud Lena Tam’s business acumen by focusing on project financing upfront. The City of Alameda can’t afford to do this alone. It’s all pie in the sky until someone can foot the bill.

Alameda Point Questions Left Unanswered

I was left with more questions than answers after last night’s city council meeting addressing Alameda Point. For me, the only answer came in the form of a 4-0 vote (Lena Tam abstaining) declaring that the City of Alameda would sever its contract with land developer Suncal, leaving Alameda Point to wallow in another 13 years of inactivity.


And now, the questions…

Why did Lena Tam abstain from voting? At first it seemed she was admitting guilt to the accusations laid against her by Interim City Manager (ICM) Ann Marie Gallant by not voting. However, according to The Island’s Michele Elleson, Tam “didn’t feel comfortable making a decision” because the city staff actually withheld vital decision-making documents from the Councilmembers. City staff would not share Suncal’s best and final development offer or City Attorney Teresa Highsmith’s opinion on the city’s legal exposure. So was it simply a confidentiality issue with Lena Tam? Doesn’t look like it. Even neutral Councilwoman Marie Gilmore was not able to read the documents.

The city staff seems to be claiming that their analysis of the Pro Forma, DDA, Navy Terms Sheet and ENA is sufficient, without giving elected officials an opportunity to come to that conclusion on their own. I commend Lena Tam. She stood up and protested. She refused to swallow someone else’s questionable answers to complex questions, and instead wanted to test the city staff’s conclusion by working through it herself. This is what I expect out of my elected officials. It is unfortunate that the Alameda city staff obstructs this kind of action.

What will happen to the city employees? As I understand it, Suncal’s escrow account bankrolls a number of city employees (see awkward argument between Frank Faye and Ann Marie Gallant in the April 20 City Council meeting over this very subject). Will they now be let go?

What’s next? Suncal points to a lawsuit while the city staff doesn’t seem to have a direction (surprise). Wouldn’t it be a joke if the city just took all of Suncal’s development materials and did it themselves…?

On a lighter note, I was very impressed with the city council meeting turnout. It’s great to see residents stand up and hold their elected and appointed officials accountable. Keep it up, Alameda.

Judgement Day: Alameda Point

Well, it looks like the City Council will finally deliver a verdict on Alameda Point which will decide whether or not they will be extending developer Suncal's Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.

I'm sure City Council Chambers will be packed tonight. Will the City Councilmembers step up and take the reins from Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant? Or will the Interim City Manager's tricks have manipulated Alameda officials into sending the developer packing? If it's the latter, I'm interested to see the ICM's next steps.

City Council agenda is below. The meeting will be held at 7 o'clock tonight.

http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/agenda.html?agenda=cc_assoc_100720_1602

Stay tuned....

War Makes for Strange Bedfellows: Suncal Opposition David Howard and Alameda City Manager Ann Marie Gallant

It’s a bit hypocritical that HIRED CITY EMPLOYEE Ann Marie Gallant is putting VOLUNTEER ELECTED OFFICIAL City Councilmember Lena Tam under Alameda DA investigation, when she exhibits the exact same behavior for which she is accusing Tam.


Ms. Gallant forgot to delete a revealing conversation between her and Mr. David Howard before forwarding it on through the E-mail chain. In this conversation, she shared Alameda Point development information with Howard, self-appointed spokesperson for Save Our City!, the principle Alameda Point project opposition.

This looks like someone pointing a finger at another person and crying foul when the accuser has done the same thing. As she is leading the posse to prosecute Lena Tam, Ms. Gallant hypocritically took the same actions behind closed doors (or should I say in deleted E-mails) when she is supposed to be acting objectively and dealing on the Alameda Point matter without bias.

It appears that Gallant is trying to cover her tracks by hiding behind the city’s 30-day E-mail deletion policy. The excuse is that this policy is necessary due to “limited server capacity.” However, there are always two copies of an E-mail: the E-mail sent and the E-mail received. If the City of Alameda chooses to not archive its E-mails for a minimum of two years unlike many other government agencies that do comply with the California Secretary of State’s recommendations, then the prosecution can still look for received E-mails beyond the City server, like the E-mail chain below. In this way, there is still evidence that Gallant has been sharing information with the opposition, just as Lena Tam is accused of sharing information with Suncal and others. Perhaps more forensic results of Gallant’s “deleted” E-mails are yet to come?

The information which Gallant provides is incriminating.

Gallant specifically writes to Howard, “You’re right; no comment (referring to how a document was leaked) ….SMILE…we will send you my op ed too so you can get it on your site…TX”

Howard replies, “I understand if you don’t want to comment on who or how it got out … Dave.”

Gallant then writes as part of a lengthy response, “If you want the June 30, 2009 ARRA audit, just call Dorey at 4887 in Finance and tell her I said it was OK to give you a copy via pdf. She will send it to you… AMG”

Mr. Howard replies in part, “Where is the ARRA annual report for FY 2008-2009? I thought it was due in December? Is Leslie Little dragging her heels on that because she doesn’t want to upset SunCal’s messaging over the “$14 million” in costs to maintain the base?”

Gallant’s actions are outrageous. Let’s take a stand for open government and get corrupt officials out of office. Gallant’s “do as I say, not as I do” line of thinking is an unacceptable double standard.

Read on for the full E-mail chain.

Suncal Finally Demands Justice from Alameda Interim City Manager

Triggered by Anne Marie Gallant’s vicious investigation of City Councilmember Lena Tam, Suncal attorneys have finally demanded justice from the City of Alameda.

As negotiations become increasingly tense, you can start to see the reality of the situation, and it appears Suncal is forced to fight fire with fire.

Suncal attorneys retaliated with three letters to city officials that are now posted on the Suncal website. The letters are full court press. A brief summary:

• Letter #1, addressed to the city clerk, is a public information request. Lena Tam is taking some heat for her E-mail etiquette, and I’m guessing Suncal would like to compare Tam’s actions with Gallant’s (eh-hem) pristine communications. They are requesting all correspondence (including E-mail) from January 1, 2006 to July 12, 2010. Knowing the city, I’m sure most electronic records will have been deleted.

• Letter #2, addressed to city council, is an analysis of the terms and conditions of the Alameda Point Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the City and Suncal. Suncal attorneys assert that Suncal has satisfied the agreement conditions and therefore a July 20th vote is not necessary and the ENA, by law, will remain in effect.

• Letter #3, addressed to city council, is a scathing documentation of the “harm Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant has done to the Alameda Point project.” A legal document has never been so riveting… The letter paints the ICM with a black brush, inferring she is maliciously manipulating city employees and elected officials, and stacking the cards so she is positioned as judge, jury and executioner. Suncal attorneys encourage the city “to take a long and hard look at the actions of Ms. Gallant and investigate what she has done and her fitness to serve as a City official.”

Ann Marie Gallant has a long history of closed door practices. I will cite a list from a fellow blogger, CT, who details her “contributions” to the city:

• Had her “Civic Center Vision” revitalization plan produced without public input

• Tried to increase her compensation without review via the City Council’s consent calendar

• Recommended that the City Council enact a badly written campaign finance reform ordinance that would give an advantage to incumbents running for office

• Handed former out-of-town colleagues city contracts without giving local businesses an opportunity to participate in an open bidding process

• Hired an outside attorney to secretly root through the emails of a council member in an effort to unseat them

Support open government; let’s remove toxic closed door practices from our city government.

Weak Justice for Oscar Grant; No Justice for Lena Tam

Faced with a covertly-assembled but taxpayer-financed dossier of alleged wrongdoing, city councilor Lena Tam has hired an aggressive and high powered attorney with a distinguished combat record. Former Marine, John Keker, Esq., has a target rich environment for a counter suit as well, following revelations that Acting City Manager Ann Marie Gallant hired outside counsel to put together a case against Tam and has turned it over to the local DA seeking her removal.

It would be bad enough that such a coup attempt was perpetrated by a staffer who is supposed to be working for ALL the city council rather than picking sides, or even creating them. But what’s more shocking is that the referral to the DA for potential prosecution and forced removal from office closely follows Tam’s query about Gallant’s contracting irregularities.

Seems Gallant overlooked local and qualified bond counsel and instead sent the lucrative six-figure business to an old boss of hers. He scratched her back. Now she’s scratching his. And this would have all been under the radar and letter-of-the-law legal except that there were two bond attorneys in the deal who were not divvying up the money evenly, so one of them was getting more than 75K, the magic number at which Gallant is supposed to first seek council approval.

So Tam has the good sense to air her concern about this perhaps minor league breach of the city’s procurement rules. But in seeming retaliation, out comes this file on Tam that Gallant has built and is now turning over to the DA. Wow.

Since Tam is not accused of illegal or questionable actions in her own interest, but merely of the same sort of minor technical violations our city manager herself seems to perpetrate, the timing and implications could not be more onerous.

Gallant and Tam have differed on questions about the Firefighters’ Union and SunCal’s proposals for Alameda Point. But it seems to me having files on your bosses is a lot like J. Edgar Hoover having the dirt on a Kennedy or Nixon.

Unfortunately for Keker and Tam, their effort at a press conference yesterday to air their side of the story went badly, as their timing ran up against the Mehserle manslaughter verdict, plus a lot of unhappy rioters venting over the tragic loss of Oscar Grant.

Her attorney said the case was ‘merit-less’ and called for quick review by the DA, rather than letting this circus further tarnish an otherwise dedicated volunteer elected official. He said our city’s appointed bureaucrats were making themselves “judge, jury and executioner,” and that was just Mr. Keker getting warmed up.

Keker’s going to need to watch his back too. I can imagine Gallant’s opening a file up on him even as I type – and that you and I will be paying the tab for it, whether we know it or not.

I for one don’t want my elected officials cowering before modern-day McCarthyism or Hoover style tactics. Time to start paying attention folks, and stop sitting on the sidelines.

Gallant Wants Tam Voted Off the Island

Wow. It’s really creepy to me that a city administrator can seek to have one of her elected bosses removed from government. All the more so because the councilor in question, Lena Tam, is the same one who dared inquire about the administrator’s recent end-run around competitive procurement to give some bond counsel business to an old friend and employer.

If this maneuver works, every other elected official is going to have to double back and revisit every email they’ve ever sent to see if they too might have stepped over some line in regards to some rule or other. If they have, and the administrator, ICM Gallant in this case, has the ‘goods’ on them, then we only have our democratic republic in working order right up until Gallant decides to hit the eject button. Reminds me of Dr. Evil, ready to dump the next underling into the fire with the push of a button.

Our elected councilors are essentially citizen legislators. If they have indeed crossed some line, the right thing to do as a highly paid senior professional in this regard is to point it out to them. Not build some file with some private eye or attorney and then drop it all off at the DA’s office with a press release at the ready to further spin the gotcha.

This is really twisted. And the further irony is that the ICM’s own e-mail trail gets destroyed for no good reason after 30 days, per city policy. My own hotmail and gmail accounts can store large quantities of email for years and not run up any sort of appreciable tab. Electronic data storage is dirt cheap. So the current city policy of covering its own tracks should be revisited if nothing else.

I’m sure there won’t be any ‘smoking gun’ for the ICM. She’s been down this road multiple times before. But a good publicly accessible records retention policy might help us keep an eye on our money in the future.