pages: CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-09-21 | 16 | particularly for the public; he feels that he has been trained on the Brown Act; that he has been provided with materials from noted State experts; having materials available for the public, rather than having a road training, would be valuable; that he would like to have the City Attorney come back with a public educational workshop plan, sighting reference materials, in addition to reviewing case law; having the City Auditor check the bills is perfectly appropriate; Mr. Colantuono said that he has not seen a letter [from Councilmember Tam's attorney]; the matter will come back to Council after the letter is reviewed which would be the end of the matter since Council will not be pursuing civil litigation; at that point he does not have any problem with the Contract ending. The City Attorney stated terminating Mr. Colantuono's Contract with the City would be in violation of the City Charter; the Charter gives the City Manager the authority and power to investigate any City official; Section 7-3 states that Council cannot interfere with a City Manager's duties or obligations; the matter was discussed at the September 9th Special City Council meeting; Mr. Colantuono's Contract is one contract; the investigation of Councilmember Tam is not a separate contract; that she would not recommend terminating Mr. Colantuono's services; Council should refrain from doing such a thing. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Colantuono has a general contract and does not provide specific service descriptions and costs each time. The City Attorney responded Mr. Colantuono always provides specific service descriptions and costs; stated the City Auditor does not need to be engaged; an audit would not show how much has been spent on internal staff time; that she can advise Council and the community how much has been spent over the last six months. Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City has remedied the problem noted by Mr. Spangler [Police Department's failure to provide information]; the public's curiosity has been heightened; having the public understand Brown Act requirements is important; inquired whether anyone has asked the City Attorney how much money has been spent [on investigation of Councilmember Tam]. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that she will personally provide the information to Council. Councilmember Tam stated a Public Records Act request shows that Mr. Colantuono's invoices from March through August totaled $77,000; inquired whether said amount is accurate. The City Attorney responded the amount may or may not be accurate; stated the response to the referenced Public Records Act request provided the monthly summaries of the total amount of services; Mr. Colantuono's services to the City are in other areas, which has been the case for over a decade. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 September 21, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf |