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.

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.