Alameda City Council Investigator's Report

Alameda purposefully has a structure where the City Council has limited powers (with a focus on policymaking). It is noble some choose to give of themselves in this capacity. This acknowledged, it is also very good for Alameda we don’t rely on our City Council for more. For most of our current Councilmembers can’t follow their own policies. This is evidenced via reading the entire 100-page investigator report regarding the hiring of our new Fire Chief and subsequent financial settlement with the City Manager.

The report is a tight breakdown of events based on strict legal interpretations. Which is correct for the purpose it was undertaken. However, we, those who live in and pay Alameda taxes, are the constituency to which the City Council (and our city services) must answer. So, after seeing the City Council’s improper actions cost us nearly seven figures, assessment of the report findings from the citizens perspective may be helpful:

Councilmember Oddie: You crossed the line of your oath by signing your name to a specific candidate endorsement while acting in your official capacity. The investigative report clearly calls you out as guilty of this (pages 12, 66, 70). Not only this, the report further flat-out questions the sincerity of your statements made to the investigation team (page 11). Your statement since the report release regarding Section 7-3 ambiguity is laughable given what you did and not only entrenches your lack of integrity but adds arrogance. Having proven yourself as a liability for Alameda both ethically and financially, if you really want what’s best for Alameda, and since none of your actions have shown it, here’s what “honorable” looks like: Admit your mistakes, own up to the fact actions have consequences, and step down. Consider you – and perhaps selected other Council members - not being personally financially liable to reimburse the City a gift from us. Lastly, as an added observation: There’s a sage saying that you can tell a lot about a man by those whom he surrounds himself. It’s informative to learn Assemblyman Bonta shares in your actions and company.

Councilmember Vella: You took trust placed in you at time of your oath and disrespected it. The timing of your meetings with the Fire Union and Keimach and consistent outcome of various people’s notes and interviews speak to your legitimately questioned integrity. Why did you have so many meetings/discussions with the Fire Union about the open position that clearly went beyond process questions and were directed toward candidate preference? This happening once is somewhat excusable, but then how come the continued Fire Union discussions focused on which candidate to select? This is inexcusable. And then, as if this is not already highly questionable behavior, you submit a brief claiming first amendment protections preclude the responsibilities of your voluntarily taken oath to not commit malfeasance and “assure integrity in government” (page 17). Reading and knowing what you sign-up for before you sign-up for it is a 101-level fundamental even for an architecture major, let alone a J.D. So, how can we not believe an oath means nothing to you? Your lack of taking responsibility screams that you are tied to consideration beyond your purview and not in it for the betterment of Alameda. Even without knowing what the recording has on it, all you do from here on out in Alameda will be highly questioned and scrutinized. For however long you stay, never forget you’ve earned this added attention.

Councilmember Ashcraft: You are a more savvy version of Vella. But, truth will out. Not only did you take grey-area actions in specific candidate support, you did it in a way that lent to corrupting the vetting process (pages 35-36). With no mention of what defined process would dictate, why did you suggest to Keimach that she meet with one specific candidate? Then, despite your comments about taking notes (Page 27) and even the investigators making a footnote of your very detailed notes (Page 9) how (or why?) did you neglect to tell the investigator you shared with others that you were going to arrange a lunch between Keimach and someone who was exerting directional pressures in hiring the Fire Chief? Since you didn’t admit to this, we are glad the investigator figured it out (Page 40). Like Vella, your actions are not ones that build trust and inspire leadership. All this can and should be reminded when it comes time to vote for Mayor.

Councilmember Mataresse: It’s amazing how doing your job correctly allows you to stand out in the best of ways. Good on you!

Mayor Spencer: You too did well to stay out of the fray. Thanks for that.

(ex)City Manager Keimach: You threw the kitchen sink of reasons into your October letter. You aren’t perfect in all this, but after having the Oddie letter in-hand and experiencing repeated Vella and Ashcraft self-insertions, it’s reasonable to see why you were worried. In fact, the Council agrees with this sentiment - for they just settled with you for $900k+. Note they won’t apologize for or take responsibility for their own actions, but they will pay our money to close this “unfortunate” (to quote Ashcraft) chapter in our city’s history.

Alameda Fire Union, its members, and Alameda Firefighters: One of the side “benefits” of the investigative report is unveiling the true character and motives of your organization. What reeked in the report from many different sources/perspectives was a straight-up undermining and disregard for obtaining the best-of-the-best available for serving the citizens of Alameda. The examples are extensive: From the stacking of those who sit on the Fire Prevention Bureau (Page 25 and only supported by Oddie, Vella, and Ashcraft… hmmm); to threatening to limit the Fire Chief applicant pool (page 10); and then - perhaps most derelict - to the failure to provide mutual aid (Page 31, inexcusable and an embarrassment!). Know that via your own actions, your desires to be seen as a brotherhood duty-bound to serve others is seriously deflated. As citizens, we don’t have choice in city services selection. But it would serve us well if we did for fire services. This is because the competitive landscape could place your actions in-check and push beyond lip service your reply to this question: Tell us how you are working in the interest of citizens?

To City Council and Fire Union collectively: What did the citizenry of Alameda learn from all this? Is it that you “got away” with it? A look at the early outcomes may indicate you have: As of now, 1) the three council members the Fire Union has most strongly backed remain in their positions; 2) actions some will view as obstructive and perhaps even derelictions of duty by firefighters have not been called out; and 3) a City Manager that was an agenda impediment is now gone. You might consider all these wins. But recognize some things are changing. Thanks to your actions and directly resulting from a very costly investigation and settlement, citizens here and in other cities will view candidate endorsements from the Firefighters Union as a strike against the candidate. We will look for candidates willing to strongly support the curtailing of pensions which are out of tune with economic reality. And, as another legacy you can claim, we will question more deeply if council members and firefighters really will perform their sworn duties when called upon.