Tam Exonerated by Alameda… Again

Money talks, and in Alameda City Councilmember Lena Tam’s case, it says it all.

In what I like to call “the dark ages of Alameda,” former Alameda legal counsel Michael Colantuono, hired by former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant, tried to get Councilmember Tam kicked out of her city council seat. Mr. Colantuono stooped to absolutely ridiculous tactics, including racist remarks (according to the Alameda DA) and unfounded defamation.

Now, the City of Alameda released a statement declaring that:

“the City Council voted unanimously on May 19, 2011 to approve the claim filed by Alameda Councilmember Lena Tam to obtain reimbursement of attorneys fees she paid to defend herself when the City’s former outside counsel Michael Colantuono filed a request with the Alameda County District Attorney (“DA”) on behalf of the City of Alameda requesting that Councilmember Lena Tam be removed from office under Government Code section 3060”

Translation: They’re reimbursing Tam for her legal fees. The case brought against her was so ludicrous that the City not only had to pay for the city-hired prosecutor Colantuono, but now they also have to pay for Tam’s defense lawyer. And when I say “they have to pay,” I mean you: the taxpayer. Thanks again to Ann Marie Gallant who started this chain of events. I continue to wonder what other courses of action she took that the City of Alameda will be paying for in the future.

On the up-side, it looks like the City of Alameda is getting an upgrade in legal advice. They’ve switched from Michael “racist-remarks” Colantuono to Manuela Albuquerque, former Berkeley city attorney.  Albuquerque is a subject matter expert on the Brown Act and a well-respected attorney in the Bay Area. Looks like Colantuono lost this battle, evidenced by the fact that Tam received a $44,000 reimbursement for legal fees. Colantuono made a few mistakes in due process: he went straight to the DA to file a request to have Tam removed from office, without the consent of the City Council. What’s more, Colantuono made his case on the fact that Tam violated the Brown Act. Wrong again. If she had violated the Brown Act, you better believe Tam wouldn’t be receiving a $44,000 check for legal fees.

In summary, Tam has executed a release and will be paid for her legal expenses …  and if they’re paying her for the Colantuono debacle, they must really be sorry.

City at Risk, Decides to Mediate on Alameda Point Lawsuits

I reported on the “suite of suits” that Alameda’s new City Manager John Russo will inherit, and in the last days there has been a seismic shift in these lawsuits. Former Fire Chief Dave Kapler filed a $2 million wrongful termination claim, and the City and Suncal have agreed to mediation for federal and state lawsuits that could amount to over $100 million. The Kapler lawsuit was expected and looks like a $2 million drop in the bucket compared to the amount that Suncal is demanding from the City.

There is a common thread in each and every one of these lawsuits: Former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant. In addition to all the lawsuits against Gallant, she is also suing the city herself. That’s an HR issue if I’ve ever seen one.
Fortunately the Suncal/City lawsuits have seemed to take a turn for the better with the announcement that they will “Move to Resolve Lawsuits Through Mediation.” Being a novice legal beagle, I asked an attorney friend of mine a few questions to see if this actually is a turn for the better. I did my best to summarize her answers.

Why would the City of Alameda agree to mediation?

Most corporate lawsuits settle out of court – it is usually in the best interest of both parties and can save time and money. It seems the City has weighed the pro’s and con’s of the suit and has decided it would be better not to go to court. Usually, this means they feel they can’t win or it would be difficult to convince a judge/jury of innocence.

What about Ann Marie Gallant’s implication in all of the City lawsuits?

I would figure that is one of the reasons the City feels they can’t win. There are a few lawsuits stacked up against Gallant and she is also suing the city, not to mention she has a history of misconduct in many of her other government jobs. She wouldn’t appear guilt-free in front of a judge/jury and seems to be a significant risk for the City.

What do you think the outcome will be?

Well, mediation is an extremely effective way to avoid the (typically) 5 year long process of court proceedings. I wouldn’t want to plan a city budget knowing there is a potential $100 million payment looming – you can’t plan for that kind of thing. The city must know they are at risk and have chosen to mediate. It seems to be a good option for both parties.

(end Q&A)

I’m guessing this is also a nod from developer Suncal to show that their problem is with the former City Manager, not the City of Alameda. Now that she is out of the picture, they can sort out the pieces and hopefully we can all understand what really happened.

Russo Inherits Disastrous Alameda Lawsuits

Apparently former Oakland City Attorney John Russo loves a challenge. After making many fond memories with Oakland Mayor Jean Quan (read: sarcastic), it looks as if Russo will leave the elected city attorney position for the city manager position in equally-kooky Alameda. 

Russo will inherit about half a dozen lawsuits against the city and a history of suspicious behavior from elected and appointed officials. Still, I’m hopeful that this change will help turn things around in Alameda. With fresh blood in the council, a competent mayor and a new city manager, Alameda just may have a chance to straighten things out.

Not to continually reference the impending doom of the lawsuits against the city, but Alameda has racked up quite a suite of suits:

-          Three lawsuits filed by Suncal that could amount to over $100 million dollars

-          One lawsuit filed by previous interim city manager Ann Marie Gallant

-          One lawsuit filed by previous city attorney Teresa Highsmith

-          Potential lawsuit from former Fire Chief David Kapler

A recent Island of Alameda article by Michele Ellson revealed the city’s pressing financial woes: “Alameda Facing Millions in Budget Deficits; Treasurer Says City Heading Toward Bankruptcy.” According to this article:

Alameda is facing a $6.2 million general fund budget shortfall next year and growing deficits for each of the four years that follow it; without major cuts or more money, the city will exhaust its fund balance before the end of the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the forecast showed.

What’s more, the city must pay an additional $860,000 for medical services, $622,000 in fuel and supply costs, all while they’re losing $710,000 in sales tax and $900,000 in costs from the golf complex handover.

These lawsuits filed against the city could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The legal costs alone would be two (well-paid) full time jobs. What exactly is all of this costing the city per month? As it stands now, there’s not a dime to spare in the City of Alameda’s budget. Are we closing down a school or cutting teachers’ salaries to pay city lawyers?

Not to mention the cost of settling these lawsuits. What if a plaintiff wins a suit against the city? Can Alameda afford to pay the settlement without declaring bankruptcy? According to the City Treasurer, the answer is no.

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.

Alameda Point: Affordable Housing Comparison

The city recently agreed, in the wake of Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies and cut down the state’s $25 billion deficit, to commit $40 million for Alameda Point upgrades.


It is commendable that the city is taking a leadership role to provide adequate affordable housing for Alameda Point, but the previous developer’s proposed plan had 928 affordable housing units and 157 adaptive re-use units. How much will $40 million get Alameda Point? Will it be equal or lesser than the previous plan?

The previous plan by Peter Calthorpe allocated 928 affordable housing units and 157 adaptive re-use units, and without a developer or a plan, when will any affordable housing be built? The families in need of housing can’t wait another seven years for a shovel ready plan to be put into effect. How long will it take to get more affordable housing in Alameda?

The previous plan was a big victory for affordable housing advocates, and they are seeing this victory disappear. Alameda Point, currently the home to hundreds of relocated veterans and affordable housing units, was the solution for affordable housing and once more it’s becoming part of the problem.

Affordable housing can mean multi-family dwellings, which, of course, will be in violation of Measure A. But if we’re trying to get the most bang for our buck and the most homes for our veterans and our low income families, “violating” Measure A is the solution. I’d say this is something for consideration by our city leaders.