Will Tramutola Throw Perata Under the Bus After the Oakland Election Loss?

I did a bit of research on political consultant Larry Tramutola after finding out he was campaign manager for Don Perata’s failing 2010 bid for Oakland Mayor.

Interestingly enough, what popped up first was a Bay Citizen article with the headline “Strategist: SunCal Ignored My Advice.” It was a surprisingly candid article with Tramutola where he said, in so many words, that the failure of the Alameda project was due to the client. These days, I don’t know of many consulting firms that would blast their clients like this in the media. I wonder how many more contracts that article got the firm…

I dug a bit further, and Tramutola’s track record didn’t improve. Perata, Tramutola’s client, was quoted on the campaign trail as saying that he didn't really understand ranked-choice voting.
Well, either Perata was playing dumb because he knew ranked-choice voting would hurt him or his campaign manager Tramutola was sleeping on the job. The East Bay Express covered some of Tramutola’s early campaign mailers for Perata, which were “full of ridiculous errors that raise serious doubts about the intellectual capacity of Perata’s close associates.”

As campaign manager, Tramutola should have been prepared for the new ranked-choice voting system. Even following the campaign peripherally, it was easy to see that ranked-choice voting would be a force to be reckoned with in the Oakland mayoral election… also because it was all over the news. A hard one to miss, especially for someone as involved as a campaign manager.

Now the million dollar question: will Tramutola come out and say that Perata “ignored his advice” and blame Perata?

The Ranked Choice Voting System Rages on in Oakland

I covered Ranked Choice Voting back in April (full article here) speculating that the system could help Oakland mayoral candidate Kaplan.


Well, candidates Kaplan and Quan put their heads together and effectively beat the system. Projected winner former State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata actually won the popular vote, at 35%. But it wasn’t enough. He lost the race to Quan, who understood the in’s and out’s of Ranked Choice Voting and used them to her advantage.

Basically, having a strong support core is not enough to win a ranked choice voting election. To win, candidates must have both a strong support core AND a broad base of support. In highly polarized elections where the vote is divided, it can be anyone’s game.

But Kaplan and Quan saw ahead of the curve and focused on voters that would rank Kaplan and Quan first and second, knocking Perata down a spot or two. He did manage to keep his core support, but Kaplan and Quan knocked out his broad base of support, which cost him the election. Quan racked up 25% of the popular vote, but also won a lot of second place votes. Who says number two is the first loser? Now Quan is the Mayor of Oakland.

Makes me wonder what would happen in other cities like Alameda if Ranked Choice Voting was instituted. Maybe Marie Gilmore wouldn't be mayor after all...

Apparently Perata mentioned on the campaign trail “that he didn't really understand ranked-choice voting.” I’m betting Perata’s election strategists are feeling a bit sheepish right about now. I’m also betting we’re going to see some more legal action against Ranked Choice Voting.

Finally, A Peek Inside Alameda City Hall

I’ve been waiting for someone to do this, and they did….


While the good people of Alameda are with their families, sleeping in their beds or doing anything else but watching City Council meetings until 1 in the morning, our UNelected city officials are running amok. I think recent headlines are enough to make anyone question “What the heck is going on at City Hall?” but this video will SHOW you...

A quick summary before you view:

It seems it’s not the elected leaders, but rather the appointed Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant who is in control of our tax dollars.

Gallant-hired gun Michael Colantuono is at the stand, pretentious at best, telling the Councilmembers what they do and (mostly) don’t have the power to do. According to Colantuono, it is the unelected city manager who dictates the city budget. Translation: she is not being held accountable for how or how much she is spending.

It’s absolutely maddening to watch this arrogant man try and force the Councilmembers to believe that the City Manager has the authority to DO and SPEND whatever she wants.

No, Gallant, it’s not OK that you dictate the city budget from behind closed doors, and when questioned, hire an outside attorney to say “Don’t ask questions!”

Don't believe me? Take a look...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxyCfo0vAI

Alameda DA Calls City-Hired Attorney Racist

In her September 28th letter, Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney, ripped apart the arrogant claims of Michael Colantuono “Special Counsel” hired by the City of Alameda. The letter was received by the Alameda Mayor’s Office on October 6, 2010 and can be viewed here.


O’Malley’s letter is stinging (for Colontuono)… here are a few excerpts:

“I find it offensive that you have singled out Asian-American leaders”


“This sort of racially charged accusation has no place in professional dialogue.”


“Whatever your motives in making these false claims, I remain mindful of our role in this process: to objectively and dispassionately evaluate the facts and the law so that a just decision can be reached.”


“I consider the comments you made…to have been made out of ignorance and disappointment, not out of malice and accordingly plan no additional action against their maker.”

It is absolutely ridiculous that the City of Alameda (or should I say Ann Marie Gallant) is paying Mr. Colantuono taxpayer dollars to play these kinds of legal tricks. To personally attack public servants Nancy O’Malley and Lena Tam is outrageous, and I would hope that our hired and elected officials would have better judgment than to hire a legal representative with such little integrity or tact.

California PUC Watchdog

The PG&E September 9th San Bruno pipeline blast, which left eight people dead, finally forced consumer watchdog groups AND the California Public Utilities Commission to open their eyes. Even after the PG&E “smart meter” scandal that had many residents up in arms about the price increases, the PUC didn’t step in to mediate the situation.


The PUC is the committee that should be protecting and serving the people with fair prices and utility regulation, but lately it seems that the committee is favoring the utility Goliaths instead of all the David’s out there paying their gas bills.

The regulatory power of the PUC dictates how much profit companies like PG&E will receive annually, based on PUC regulatory rates. Apparently PG&E is looking for a $4.2 billion increase this year, but in the wake of the pipeline blast, the PUC may not be so lenient with granting their request.

Unnecessary stress on taxpayers and businesses during these tough economic times is the last thing we need. With taxes increasing to pay for schools, infrastructure and public safety services, I hardly find it necessary to increase taxpayers’ utility bills, just so PG&E can have a $4.2 billion increase in profits.

Activists such as the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego have come out against the PUC, advocating for tighter, more fair regulation. And this is commission President Michael Peevey’s response:

"To quote Fox News, we're fair and balanced."

Hmmmm… not the most fair and balanced source, but OK.

It will be important for the community to keep an eye on the PUC: two of the five commissioners are to be replaced in 2011. This means our next governor will play a major role in the future composition of the commission; the five commissioners are appointed by the government and confirmed by the state Senate. Stay tuned.

Voter Survey Says: Gilmore Favored; Top Issues Job Creation, City Budget and School Funding

After I waded through survey percentages, open ended responses, aggregated responses, first, second and third choices, a voter survey revealed that Alameda voters are concerned with…money.

Money for schools: address the school closings, school funding and how it relates to the overall budget.

Money management: balance the city budget, both long and short term, focusing on the sustainability of pensions, city services and school funding.

Making more money (JOBS): create more local jobs and boosting commerce.

And of course, Alameda Point redevelopment was a top concern for voters, citing frustrations on the lack of progress at Alameda Point, “going back 13 years since the base closed.”

And who do voters want in charge of the money? Gilmore.

Eighteen percent of voters would cast their ballot for Marie Gilmore, followed by Doug DeHaan with 17 percent. So bye, bye Matarrese; it looks like Gilmore and DeHaan will go head to head come November.

Some of the open-ended survey responses to the question (paraphrased) “what issue or problem is the top priority for Alameda?” were particularly interesting, so I pulled out a few choice replies:

It would be schools. Education is going downhill. It is a lot worse than it was when we were kids. That is very sad. A healthy school system means that there is a healthy community, and that kids and parents are happier and smarter. It just makes everything work out just fine. It is really important.

The schools are the primary issue. If the children aren't in the right direction of getting a good education, we will have a lot of grown up idiots. We need better teachers. The government must not be loose with the money. They need to be wiser.

They should find a way to take care of the education system without taxing more. They always throw it on the homeowners. The main issues are schools and employment. They need to stop doing these partial taxes.

They need to focus on the Alameda base. They need to be nicer to businesses. They are chasing businesses out of town because they think of themselves first as opposed to thinking of everyone else. It is a tiny island community

It is the naval air station. They should get on with redevelopment. It is not halfway finished, and for 15 years, they have been working on it due to arguments with the developers. The naval air station finally closed and the third developer just moved out. No property taxes or income are being generated, but it is the best view in the bay area.

They should address the development of the old naval base or Alameda point. It is an empty space on the island. I think the proper infrastructure needs to be placed before they start developing the island. Whatever they do, they need to make sure it doesn't clog the arteries into the city. They also need to help the school district.

… and just to get everyone riled up:

I would like to see a Wal‐mart or Kmart built here.

In Alameda, Matarrese Is Attacked From All Sides

Matarrese’s flip flop tactics and lack of leadership are finally garnering election attention. Labor representatives, DeHaan supporters and anonymous citizens are burning Matarrese left and right. I’ll have to say, I almost feel bad for the guy… Almost.
After getting the Alameda Labor Council endorsement in 2006, they pulled support from Matarrese and dished it out to Gilmore this year. This was even after Matarrese pushed for an Alameda Point PLA (public labor agreement) with the unions. I’m not sure what’s going on behind those closed doors, but Labor seems confident in their endorsement of Gilmore after a rigorous candidate interview process to find a candidate that “will best meet the challenges of today's economy and keep our interests at heart.”
And of course, the infamous Anti-Matarrese push poll that ran on September 17. I frown on these kind of election tactics, but this push poll really held Matarrese to the fire citing his lack of leadership and failure to hold corrupt officials accountable. I agree with latter part.

Most recently, an unnamed (sortof) source posted an anti-matarrese YouTube clip. Bloggers are opinionating that David Howard, a known DeHaan for Mayor supporter, posted the clip. Take a look; it’s comment number 32 on LaurenDo’s Election 2010 entry. The clip highlights his flip flop tactics, and I’ll have to agree it does seem like Matarrese is more interested in appearing like he serves the community than actually (gasp) serving the community.

One quick quip then I’ll get off my soapbox, but it makes me wonder what Alameda officials are really working towards if it’s not the best interest of the community…