Category Archives: Politics

Elections, campaigns, govermnent

SURPRISE – Russo Finally Hired

John Russo is actually finally set to become Alameda’s new City Manager, after months of breathless anticipation. Despite how absurdly scripted and unethical it may look,  City Council is set to announce his hiring at their meeting on May 3, 2011. According to the terms of his contract, he will start sometime in June. Mr. Russo, soon to be the ex-elected City Attorney of Oakland, has no experience as a City Manager, nor does he bring any financial management experience to the job, despite Alameda’s impending budget crisis.

And the Winner Is…

Well, whaddya know? Alameda has a new City manager, and it’s someone with no experience managing a city, much less managing a California city. Never mind that the other two finalists were City Managers. Never mind that one of the finalists even had experience managing Alameda.

What does John Russo have to offer?  A lengthy political career. Contributions to the majority voting bloc of Alameda City Council. Friends in high places. A history of helping SunCal, despite the hazards to the public.

He’s being hired by a Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmember who claim to…remain committed to rebuilding trust in Alameda. That requires open dialogue, mutual respect and a total commitment to an open process between citizens and their government.

But this comes after open disrespect of the community by adhering to the agenda put forth during the political campaign last November by SunCal, a blatant violation of the City Charter in terminating the ICM, and now culminates in the installation of an unqualified Perata associate as City Manager after the most artificial and accelerated beauty pageant in this City’s history.

Who, exactly, thinks they’re being clever here?

Update: speaking of clever, community interviewer Kate Quick, appointed by embattled Lena Tam, has substantiated the reports of Russo’s hiring even though it has yet to be officially announced or confirmed by the City:

Kate Quick comment at Blogging Bayport

Fair Tax Proponents Release Timeline Showing How Erwin & Muir Crafted School Closure Plan

School closure threats manufactured by political consultants paid $300/hour by AUSD

Alameda, Calif. – Proponents of a fair and progressive parcel tax to support Alameda schools released today documents and a timeline showing how Oakland-based political consultants Erwin & Muir, who have worked on every AUSD parcel tax ballot measure since 2008, and who AUSD paid $300/hour, sat on the Alameda Unified School District’s Master Plan Advisory Group, and performed public relations work for the District designed to scare voters into support parcel taxes, under threat of massive school closures through a doomsday plan known as “Plan B.”

Despite the threats crafted for AUSD by Erwin & Muir, and the failure of a parcel tax ballot measure last year, no schools have closed.

This year, the Alameda Unified School District is again threatening school closures unless their latest parcel tax measure, Measure A, on the ballot March 8th, passes. The District is again citing threats of school closures under “Plan B” and the Master Plan that Erwin & Muir helped craft.

“The Draconian plan of school closures the Alameda Unified School District says it will have to implement if Measure A fails is a fraud. This plan, known as ‘Plan B,’ was not written by educators or even the school district’s accountants but crafted by political consultants whose only interest was to give the district a political tool to scare people into voting for Measure A,” said Leland Traiman, Secretary for the Committee Against Measure A in Alameda.

Below is a timeline of Erwin & Muir’s handiwork in crafting the fraudulent school closure plan:

  • 2008 – Then AUSD Superintendent Ardella Dailey starts paying political consultants Erwin & Muir $300/hour.
  • May, 2009 – Erwin & Muir begins invoicing AUSD for work on master plan.
  • June, 2009 – AUSD Superintendent Kirsten Vital issues AUSD master plan update process newsletter, wherein she identifies political consultants Maggie Muir and Maureen Erwin as members of her Master Plan Advisory Group. Nowhere in the newsletter does she admit that they are political consultants doing work for AUSD at $300/hour.
  • June, 2009 – AUSD hires AUSD Trustee Mike McMahon’s daughter, Becky McMahon, as a web designer. Becky joins her mother as an AUSD employee.
  • July, 2009 – Superintendent Vital issues a $64,000 “open” purchase order to Erwin & Muir with no written contract, and no AUSD Board of Trustees review or approval.
  • August, 2009 – Erwin & Muir issues a $14,000 invoice to AUSD for website redesign.
  • December, 2009 – Erwin & Muir issues invoice to AUSD for work on master plan.
  • February, 2010 – AUSD issues master plan, with doomsday “Plan B” if parcel tax does not pass.
  • March 1, 2010 – Superintendent Vital justifies $300/hour expense with Erwin & Muir as a cost-saving measure.
  • May 26, 2010 – Erwin & Muir issues invoice to AUSD for $10,757 for mailing over 41,000 pieces of Measure E campaign literature disguised as a “newsletter.”April/May, 2010 – AUSD says that 11 schools will close if they don’t raise $14 million with Measure E parcel tax.
  • June 22, 2010 – Measure E fails at the ballot box. No schools close.
  • July, 2010 – AUSD begins planning for new parcel tax, citing master plan and “Plan B” doomsday scenario, saying schools will close without a parcel tax.
  • December, 2010 - AUSD says that 5 schools will close if they don’t raise $12 million with Measure A parcel tax, even though State of California school finances are no better.
  • January, 2011 – Erwin & Muir being working as campaign consultants for “Yes on A” campaign to pass Measure A. AUSD and “Yes on A” campaign cite the Master Plan and “Plan B” doomsday scenario as a reason to vote for Measure A.
  • February, 2011 – Erwin & Muir and “Yes on A” campaign bully and intimidate Alameda Journal editor Connie Rux into pulling an op-ed piece from the newspaper that exposes Erwin & Muir’s role in creating the fraudulent master plan.

The Committee Against Measure A in Alameda has published supporting documentation, and a selection of the many invoices sent to AUSD by Erwin & Muir since 2008 here: http://www.alameda-no-on-a.com/erwin-and-muir-master-plan-b.pdf

About the Committee Against Measure A in Alameda:  The Committee Against Measure A in Alameda is a group advocating for a fair and progressive parcel tax for Alameda schools, combined with honest restructuring in line with the calls for school restructuring from President Obama and California Governor Jerry Brown.

To the Editor

I have grave concerns about the chain of possession of the letter from Acting City Attorney Donna Mooney addressed to me and other Alameda citizens, dated 1/25/11. Between the time it was signed by ACA Mooney and delivered to my home, it was intercepted by City of Alameda Democratic Club official and SF Gate blogger, John White, and posted online without my consent. I am sure it was my copy of the letter, because each was hand-signed, and each signature varies slightly; mine matches the copy posted online exactly.

I verified with both the City Clerk’s and the City Attorney’s office that John made no request for the document from either office. Nor have I at any time granted him permission to access my copy of the letter. This leads me to wonder not only how John learned of the existence of the letter before the recipients did, but who provided him with the document to scan and post online. This reminds me all too well of behavior he has been accused of within the past year.

In the interest of transparency, the average citizen has to put in requests for public documents at City Hall, but apparently John White does not.

(Update 2/2/11, 4:15 PM, added video from 2/1/11 City Council meeting)


Get Microsoft Silverlight

The City of Alameda Has ESP

The most interesting tidbit of last night’s City Council meeting (other than the LBL site being located next to the Seaplane Lagoon) was hearing CADC Co-President Jim Oddie, speaking as a private citizen, of course, informing the assembled public that the law firm of Meyers Nave had been retained by the City in Mid-December, 2010. As he read into the record the achievements and bona fides in the field of employment litigation of attorney Edward Kreisberg, Oddie asked everyone “Whose advice should we believe?”

In mid-December, there were no pending or pressing employment issues with the City. Marie Gilmore was not yet Mayor. Theresa Highsmith had not yet accepted employment in Barstow. Nobody had any idea that Ann Marie Gallant was under review. The only connection Meyers Nave had to the City at that time was that one of their lawyers was a generous contributor to both the campaigns of Rob Bonta and Lena Tam.

Councilmember deHaan, quoted in the Island today, stated:

“I think we’ve got to be open and honest about what’s transpired. This didn’t happen overnight,” deHaan said.

DeHaan said some members of the council got legal advice in October on a similar matter that was different from what the outside attorney the city hired to investigate whether the decision to put Gallant on leave was handled properly.

The press release issued by the city on January 13, 2011 states, if I may paraphrase, “The attorney we hired says we did nothing wrong. Trust us.” However, there are no actual citations of law or fact to support Attorney Kreisberg’s opinion, nor any definitive explanation of how the Brown Act or City Charter were not violated. Rob Bonta, acting as Mayor in only his second open City Council meeting (because New Mayor Marie Gilmore was off at a Mayors Conference) made sure to read this press release into the record, as if it were fact.

Then, Eugenie Thompson spoke up with this presentation:

Get Microsoft Silverlight

So here’s the problem: Gilmore, Tam and Bonta knew this problem was coming in advance, they hired outside counsel to advise them through it, they handled it badly in process, and then issued a weak press release afterward that explained nothing. How does that jibe with “a total commitment to stability, transparency and resolving conflicts in good faith?

So whose advice should we believe?