pages: CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf, 17
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-09-07 | 17 | College of Alameda intersection improvement; discussed the archive documents on her website. Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to have archived documents. (10-426) The following speakers discussed the District Attorney's letter with the decision that there was insufficient evidence against Councilmember Tam: Jeff Mitchell, Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Barbara Kahn, Alameda; and Bill Smith, Alameda. Councilmember Gilmore stated acknowledging and respecting the District Attorney's decision and legal process is important; the City's role has been to present the results of its investigation and have the District Attorney make a determination, which has been done; that she would vigorously oppose spending any more tax dollars on such a frivolous matter; everyone should settle down, take a deep breath, and reject the urge to escalate the matter; now is not the time for further litigation or acrimony; going after Councilmember Tam civilly appears at a minimum to be a complete waste of tax dollars and the Court's time; learn from what has occurred and get back to doing the business that the people of the City elected Council to do; to that end, it is really important that citizen's know that Council's judgments will be made with their best interest at heart; before considering any new actions on anything further relating to the matter, she will ask, echoing some of the comments made tonight, that the City Auditor audit the books and records relating to the matter so that the public has a clear understanding of the amount of money expended on the matter; right now, Council does not know how much money has been spent; secondly, she requests that outside counsel, not the firm involved in the matter, conduct a workshop on the Brown Act for Council, staff, Boards, Commissions, and any interested members of the public; finally, she requests the Council to agree that the appropriate venue for dealing with the Interim City Manager and City Attorney actions are within the context of performance reviews which have been previously scheduled and are coming up shortly; hopefully everything can be put behind once performance reviews are done and the Councilmembers can get back to the work the citizens of Alameda elected them to do; in the interest of taking a deep breath and pausing, her question to her colleagues is that she does not understand why there is a Council meeting on Thursday to determine whether or not to file litigation; that she does not know why there is a rush; if the meeting occurs at all, given the events and circumstances of the case, she suggests having the meeting in open session; the public deserves to know why and how tax dollars are being spent; individuals and attorneys who want to push forward with the case should present the rationale for doing so in the face of the fact that the District Attorney rendered an opinion that there is no evidence to pursue the matter. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 September 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf |