City of Alameda Likely to Lose Lawsuit

It seems the City of Alameda is playing a cat and mouse game with SCC Alameda, the previous developer of Alameda Point. SCC Alameda is suing the City for violation of the California Public Records Act (PRA), and it’s looking like the City will lose this lawsuit.

After reviewing the complaint that SCC Alameda filed against the city, it is clear that city councilmembers and city staff have not yet produced any of the emails requested by SCC Alameda pertaining to Alameda Point development, which is in violation of the PRA.

The City seems to keep making excuses, delaying response or simply not responding to SCC Alameda public records requests. The bottom line: this is against the law. The city has been caught red-handed not complying with public information requests, and this poor leadership by the city will cost taxpayers millions.

Interestingly enough, a fellow blogger Lauren Do also made a public records request. In addition to SCC Alameda, she was also denied the requested records, but the City Clerk gave her a bit more information as to why her request was denied.

Basically the City has two email systems. One that they actually use for day to day communications (the internal server called Groupwise) and one that they don’t (the server used for community communication called Alameda Access).

When the city clerk did a 6-month search in the Alameda Access server, there were ZERO emails from any member of the City Council, including the Mayor and City Manager Ann Marie Gallant.

Here’s where it gets sneaky: The Groupwise system, where the City Manager and City Councilmembers actually send emails, is apparently exempt from public records requests. To quote the City Clerk: “because the City of Alameda does not have the server space to retain the emails [and] … are systematically and automatically purged by IT every 30 days; therefore, they are considered “drafts” and are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Govt. Code Section 6254(a).” This is ridiculous! I’ve got a solution for you: use Gmail. You’ll have all the server space you need. Although Gallant did not set up the system that she abused, she is the person responsible for managing the email retention system (per depositions from City Clerk Lara Weisiger). Certainly this 30-day purge of all city emails is not a very good “retention system.”

At the end of the day, NEITHER SCC Alameda Nor Lauren Do HAVE received one REQUESTED email from any of the Councilmembers or the City Manager Ann Marie Gallant. This will not hold up in court.

Although this case is important in its own right, it could have a significant impact on the $100 million federal suit against the City. If the judge rules that records (which are being disputed in the PRA suit) essential to the federal suit were destroyed, then the city would likely lose, setting the city back $100 million. As a councilmember, I’d rather cough up the emails then cough up the dough to SCC Alameda… That amount of money would put Alameda into financial crisis.

More Finger Pointing in Alameda… Who’s Got the Right Direction?

It has been quite a rollercoaster in Alameda over the past year. Councilmembers were accused of wrong doing, city officials are being placed on administrative leave, elections turned nasty, developers are suing the City for breach of contract and Brown Act violations are running rampant.

Who or what is the source of all this controversy? I have my own thoughts about who is the source of the controversy, and for me they were confirmed by the recent lawsuit filed by City Manager Gallant and damage claim from City Attorney Highsmith.

Ann Marie Gallant has turned around and slapped the city with a ridiculous lawsuit; all while being on paid leave. There’s so much finger pointing and political puffery going on that it’s hard to make out what’s what. So while Gallant is pointing the finger at the City, I’m going to take a look at another lawsuit, filed by Alameda Point developer Suncal that is pointing the finger at Gallant.

Not surprisingly, Suncal has focused their lawsuit against the City of Alameda on Ann Marie Gallant and her manipulative tactics that apparently have been in effect throughout her career (see my previous entry, “Gallant at it Again in Alameda” for a timeline). However, Gallant has covered her tracks well. The lawsuit alleges fraud on the part of Gallant, but cannot prove fraudulent behavior due to the fact that Gallant deleted her emails and (insert my opinion here) most likely held closed door meetings discussing plans against the hired developer, so Gallant could lead Alameda Point development.

So Gallant is pointing the finger at the City, and Suncal is pointing the finger at Gallant. I’ll base my decision on her track record, which is a minefield of lawsuits, layoffs and resignations. I’m pointing the finger at Gallant.

Gallant at it Again in Alameda

Not surprisingly, Anne Marie Gallant is suing the City of Alameda at the close of her contract as City Manager. I say this because her abysmal employment record shows she has done so time and again. Take a look:

• 1997 – 2000 – Employed at L.A. Redevelopment Agency; Appraisal controversy and suspension over expense reports; Gallant agreed to resign
• 2000 – 2003 – Employed as General Manager of Development Services at the City of Carson; subpoenaed by the LA County Grand Jury involving contract bidding; she was terminated by the City of Carson and sued the City for $215,000
• 2004 – Employed as City Manager of the City of Gustine, CA; less than one year later, she began interviewing for her next position
• 2005 – Employed as City Manager of King City
• 2005 – Five months later, she was announced as Candidate A for City Manager of Desert Hot Springs
• 2006 - 2007 – Employed as City Manager for Desert Hot Springs; four months after her official position took effect, she resigned stating that she was “involuntarily terminated” in her public settlement agreement and took a severance pay of $119,000
• 2008 – Hired as Finance Director of Alameda
• 2009 – Hired as City Manager of Alameda
• 2011 –placed on administrative leave from a City Council vote on Dec 28, 2010; City Manager 2-year contract expires in April 2011; currently suing the City of Alameda claiming that she was “terminated” and demanding “an amount to be announced, but more than $25,000 according to filings from last Thursday,” according to John Knox White


Stop, Drop and Roll covered her lawsuit claims. I find them baffling. Currently, she is sitting at home being paid the full extent of her contract, which according to the Alameda Sun, is roughly $20,833 A MONTH (based on her $250,000 annual salary). I’m interested to see where her “lost wages” are coming from…

Also, I’d like to see how her “emotional distress damages, attorneys fees and costs” compare to Lena Tam’s, the City Councilmember who she wrongly accused of influencing elections. Tam was completely exonerated by the Alameda DA (Gallant’s attorney then tried to use a Facebook friend status to link Tam with the Alameda DA).

I only hope that the new City Manager doesn’t carry on Gallant’s toxic behavior. I’m sure the current City Council will thoroughly review all references and employment histories of current City Manager applicants to ensure that he or she does not.