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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
SunCal's problem is that 85% of Alameda's citizens voted for the meddling, tone-deaf and bankrupt developer to pack up and go away. Ms Gallant worked to represent the majority views of Alamedans, unlike the scripted process that is underway at City Hall now. No one in Alameda wants anything to do with SunCal except Marie Gilmore, Lena Tam and Rob Bonta (and soon enough their pal John Russo), which is a very small minority in a city of 72,000.
ReplyDeleteThe ghost of Gallant speaks as Gillitt. The same Gallant who went on a Salem witch hunt after Lena Tam. Fortunately, the voters saw through the charade in our most recent election, as did the DA when Gallant tried to drag that office into her scheme.
ReplyDeleteI speak for the 85% of Alameda who voted against SunCal. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-03/bay-area/17842625_1_suncal-voters-piedmont"
ReplyDeleteAdam, since you're bringing up these numbers, it wasn't 61,000 people that voted against the SunCal plan, it was 11,000. Yes, the plan was defeated, but don't mix voters with the number of people living in Alameda.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you try and inflate the numbers? Judging from the comments you've made on other blogs you don't appear to be stable.
What else could the city do? They're already bankrupt, and I'm sure they know a lot more than what's been said in public about the city attorney (Highsmith) and Interim City Manager (Gallant).
ReplyDeleteI mean, what a total disaster; the stammering Bev Johnson and Doug "the dope" DeHaan voted the train wreck Gallant into power, and now who gets to clean up the mess?
Nice work.
Dan, I am sure you're aware in the Democratic process, when it comes to elections, what matters is those who vote. If you don't vote, your voice doesn't get counted. Just as this past January, when those who decided you were unworthy of being a Democratic Party delegate, last year, of Alamedans who cast a vote in the Measure B election, as I said, 85% chose to tell SunCal to go away.
ReplyDeletePlease tell me what numbers I am inflating? Numbers don't lie.
Also, please explain why you feel the need to be to be crass and immature and resort to name calling?
Adam, I believe your statement from another blog is all that's needed to let readers into the mind of Adam:
ReplyDelete"Oh wait, that implicates your Tiger Mom, Lena Tam, again and would make Anne Marie Gallant look good. Can’t have that."
Comment by Adam Gillitt — February 23, 2011 @ 11:37 am
I guess you didn't intend to be racist...
What does this have to do with the fact that 85% of Alameda voters don't want SunCal?
ReplyDeleteAdam, your first post read:
ReplyDelete"SunCal's problem is that 85% of Alameda's citizens..."
You of course are trying to imply that the majority of the island was against Measure B, when in fact, it was 85% of a very low turnout election of 12,000 that voted "no" (there are 43,000 registered voters).
Again, I'm not disputing the results, but wonder what motivates you to intentionally distort the truth. Then again, I wonder what could motivate someone to intentionally grab the arm of an 80-year old woman against her will.
You're too well known her on the
What does this have to do with the fact that 85% of Alameda voters don't want SunCal?
ReplyDeleteWow, you still don't get it.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else on this board understand what I'm saying? I don't have children so apparently I'm having trouble communicating.
I am sure your children would be heartbroken to hear they doesn't exist, Dan. Anything else you want to lie about?
ReplyDelete"Dan Wood
@danwood East Bay, California
Karelia Software dude. I program in Cocoa. Father of two. I like to ride my bicycle. Interested in marketing for Mac indie companies. Always have new ideas!"
Back to the point at hand. SunCal's problem is that 85% of Alameda voters don't want them, and they will lie, cheat and manipulate anyone and anything to get back.
Is everyone taking crazy pills?
ReplyDelete85% of voters in that special election voted no on Measure B.
NOT, 85% of registered Alameda voters!
Why is that so hard to understand?
Dan, don't confuse Adam with facts. He spends a lot of time on all of the blogs and is really rude to people he doesn't agree with.
ReplyDeleteWhat does this have to do with the fact that 85% of Alameda voters don't want SunCal?
ReplyDeleteSomebody just pointed me to this blog, thinking it was me that was commenting on this blog. Just to clarify, it wasn't -- I have not even noticed this blog before. Either there is somebody with my same name (not that unlikely), or it's a lower form of identity theft.
ReplyDeleteI think Adam is really Randall.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg