4.20.2011

re: I don't think we're in Mayberry any more ...

Yet another proverbial shoe has dropped: Former Fire Chief Kapler's new lawsuit against the city. A consequence of the sterling stewardship of the taxpayer's monies by our city officials - not to mention the apparent litigiousness of Kapler, Gallant, and Highsmith. It's hard to tell whether this lack of concern for our money is a result of incompetence, malfeasance, or something else that doesn't even have a suitable name. 
For a city official to have a "verbal" agreement with an employee, especially regarding an issue for which the employee was previously terminated, certainly could fall in either category.

To place on administrative leave not one, but two highly paid individuals simply because officials can't figure out how to get productive work from them, strikes me as malfeasant. These folks are elected, hired,  and paid to manage our taxpayer dollars effectively and parsimoniously. Based on the reported compensation for the two individuals placed on leave, we taxpayers have just paid about 80 thousand dollars each for them to have a 90 day paid vacation. And oh, by the way, did anybody check to make sure that they didn't go out and work at another job while they were on paid vacation? Sorry, paid leave? I'm guessing nobody checked. If you can't figure out how to  deal with a "problem" employee, then you should resign. If you placed them on leave so your work life would be easier, then you've wasted my hard-earned money.

Kapler’s lawsuit seems to be engendered by him being upset he was once again terminated for the same sort of thing that cost him his prior job. Shame on us. If only we'd just looked the other way. Or perhaps not hired him in the first place. Or perhaps just put ALL agreements in writing. It’s so hard to get the wording just right…

Highsmith apparently finally cracked under the inexorable pressure of 90 days of being paid not to work while waiting to start the new job she had already accepted before she was placed on leave. Who knew waiting could be so hard?

As for Gallant, I'm not sure what her problem is. Her title was "Interim" City Manager. INTERIM is a synonym for TEMPORARY. She  didn't have a permanent job with the city to begin with. I work on a contract all the time. When the contract is over, there's no guarantee of it being renewed.  THAT'S THE NATURE OF CONTRACT WORK, MADAM! They gave you the 90 days’ notice required by your contract. We would all appreciate it if you would sit down and stop whining. And why did we hire someone who had successfully sued a prior municipal employer for wrongful termination? Hello! Do we do background checks? Wouldn’t we think a history like that might be a problem for Alameda in the future? Is anybody awake in there? (If I only had a brain …)

I used to think Alameda was a little bit of "Mayberry".  It turns out to be a lot more like "Dallas" and "Falcon Crest".

2.17.2011

re: Voting No On New Parcel Tax

There's been much discussion on this measure. One side argues it's the right thing to do for the community and the children. The other argues the tax is unfairly applied between residential and commercial properties. My reason for voting No is very simple, and very different.

The money will be wasted.

From the California web-site, here is a summary of the AUSD Star proficiency ratings for 2010.
English-Language Arts: 67.2%
History: 54.5%
Mathematics: 58.1%
Science CST: 65.5%
Science End-Of-Course: 52.5%


I grew up going to California public schools back when they were the best in the Nation, and our Nation had the best schools world-wide. How far we've fallen... At that time, grading on a curve was novel, and many parents were against it. For those of you from more modern eras here's how grading used to be done:
90 - 100: A
80 - 89: B
70 - 79: C
60 - 69: D
< 60: F


Looking at the Star rankings for AUSD, the best score achieved was possibly a D+. Everything else was a dismal failure. The best the district can do is get a D+ for teaching our students their own native language! Science is also a D. And supposedly, these test scores are an IMPROVEMENT on scores from previous years.

As a small-business person, who is a consultant for more than 30 years, I can tell you that our school system is NOT spending their funds very efficiently. I don't why they're being so inefficient. I can simply tell you that the evidence proves they are being inefficient.

If you give them more money, they will continue to be inefficient and your money will be wasted.

Perhaps we should privatize our city's school system. Let the city contract out the running of each school to a private firm. I can assure you, if a private contractor (or a private school for that matter) turned in results as poor as these, it would be out of business the same year it started. Or reformulate to ALL charter schools. They seem to perform marginally better.

I don't know what a good answer is, because my child doesn't go to school in Alameda. His mother and I value his education too much.

I do know that if you and I give them more money, it will be wasted. Their results show they don't know how to use it efficiently. Since they seem to think they can just guilt us into giving them more, they aren't being forced to learn how to be more efficient. They're like your lay-about in-law that can't quite hold a job, and always needs just a little more money to get on his or her feet. It's different this time... I've learned my lesson this time... I'll do much better this time...

They need some tough love. We need to save our money ...

1.08.2011

re: City Council Malfeasance

Given the apparent malfeasance on Dec. 28, 2010 (and some subsequent actions), I feel compelled to deliver a letter to our City Attorney. I am posting the text of the letter in its entirety below, in case any one else in the city is inspired to follow suit.

Donna Mooney, Acting City Attorney
Alameda City Hall, Room 280
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Mooney:
It appears from multiple, reliable sources, that our City Council and Mayor have violated the California Brown Act as one of their first acts of city business. To wit, on December 28, 2010 a closed meeting was held that included not only discussions of items not on the public agenda, but an actual vote on these un-published agenda items as well.
The consequence of these illegal activities, resulting in the change of responsibilities of city employees, may very well put the City of Alameda at risk of one or more lawsuits.
It further appears that the Mayor violated the City Charter by placing an administrative assistant to the City Manager on administrative leave.
Our Mayor is a lawyer, and has served on the City Council since 2003. She cannot claim forgiveness due to lack of knowledge of the law. These were clearly acts of malfeasance.
As a tax-paying citizen of California and Alameda, and a 10 year resident of Alameda, I must insist that you perform your duties and immediately investigate, and if necessary, prosecute these scofflaws.
A copy of this letter will also be sent to the Alameda County District Attorney, and the California State Attorney General.