- Local every day in
Alameda's Interim City Manager and City Attorney Placed on Administrative Leave
Closed session actions released late Tuesday night after marathon special meeting.
After a lengthy special meeting Tuesday night, Alameda's newly reconfigured City Council announced the actions taken in the evening's closed door session:
- Council voted 5-0 to place the city's attorney on paid administrative leave. Last week news surfaced that City Attorney Teresa Highsmith had accepted a position as the city attorney in Barstow without giving notice to the city of Alameda.
- Council voted 3-2 to give Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant "notice of non-renewal pursuant to the terms of her contract." The council also announced they would begin a competitive process to recruit a permanent city manager. Mayor Marie Gilmore and Councilmembers Rob Bonta and Lena Tam voted in favor of the non-renewal, while the former mayor, now Councilmember Beverly Johnson, and former Vice Mayor, now Councilmember Doug deHaan, cast "no" votes.
- The council also voted 3-2 to place Gallant on paid administrative leave effective Tuesday and continuing until the expiration of her contract on March 31, 2011. Again, Gilmore, Bonta and Tam cast "yes" votes, while Johnson and deHaan opposed.
According to a statement from the council, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney will step in as acting city attorney while Assistant City Manager Lisa Goldman will act as city manager.
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
Jon Spangler
9:46 am on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Our "new" City Council has wasted no time at all in making major changes regarding the situation in the City Manager's office. This is good news. I hope they will be able to eliminate all of the other"interims" in our civic management, one way or another...
Linda Hudson
10:02 am on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
What action was taken on the city clerk? She's a gem.
Linda Hudson
Eve Pearlman
10:23 am on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Good question, Linda. Council formed a subcommittee (Johnson and deHaan) to review the city clerk's performance and develop a contract for her.
carol gottstein
12:04 pm on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Well, well! Alameda Patch is so much more timely than a newspaper! It appears Gilmore-Bonta-Tam are indeed voting en bloc just like their opponents warned that they would! PAID leave for Highsmith? Doesn't she already draw salary from her law firm & now also from the city of Barstow? When yet ANOTHER parcel tax (on top of..e.g., the Health Care Assessment District=Alameda "Hospital"=$298/yr) is on the next ballot? When, quoting AUSD trustee Trish Spencer in the AJ:11/12/2010: "...problem is that parents make up just about 16-18% of our community"! Not all parents own a parcel nor do they all send kids to AUSD. Seems to me the majority of Alameda homeowners are being taxed for services we don't benefit from & city gov't spending (e.g. this closed session decision) becomes more bizarre daily. I don't know who the good guys are anymore.
margaret dos santos
1:48 pm on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
I agree....why paid leave for city attorney?? She should be fired and off to Barstow she goes
Jon Spangler
2:09 pm on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Even with the demonstrated cause, the City would probably have a tough time defending itself against a wrongful termination suit from the now almost-former City Attorney. It probably will cost less to terminate Highsmith (and Gallant) this way than to fight them in court. And we KNOW it will be less distracting to do so.
Vicki Lapp
2:02 pm on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
What is the basis of getting rid of Ann Marie Gallant, according to those who voted for this?
Eve Pearlman
2:03 pm on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Hi Vicki, I'm working on a story about why the council took the action it did. Will post when it's done.
Jon Spangler
2:06 pm on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Given the restrictive and generous conditions of both employees' contracts, I'll bet it was considered much simpler and cheaper to pay for the administrative leave (w/ benefits) than to contest a later lawsuit or two.
I have to agree with the admittedly expensive "wisdom" behind that choice.
The best news is that long-neglected City Clerk Lara Weisiger is finally going to have her review. Let's hope that it comes with a well-deserved raise!
Monty J Heying
3:45 pm on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Why PAID leave for someone who's clearly abandoned their job?! Where's the justification?
Kate Quick
10:02 pm on Wednesday, December 29, 2010
The City Attorney has a contract. The contract specifies the period of "notice" she must be given if terminated. Putting her on paid adminstrative leave gets her off the premises during the time between the notice and the actual "last day" under the contract. The "causes" for which she could be fired immediately are narrowly defined in the contract and don't include what she did. If the Council didn't proceed in the way specified under the contract, she would sue us (the City) for megabucks, so the Council was acting wisely to do as they did. I hope the next contract is written more sensibly.
joel
8:23 pm on Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Kate sorry I missed your rambling , when it come top public Employees there are no diference when they are put in admistrative leave or terminated escpecially since the action was taken using the vote of a newly elected Council member , she will sue and she will win . Iam surprised you could be as blind as Jon Sanplger on this issue . Anne Marie Gallant represented very well the City as todate Suncal is no longer looking at 120 of Millions settlement but a cou[ples a hundres thousands if that much , without Ms Anne Marie Gallant dilligence we would be out millions of dollars . Assuming the cirrent lreasder don't fall asleep during the mediation . That is wher Anne Marioe Gallant was brillant , ion for the long haul .
Hope you both love my Zinglish .
Kate Quick
9:47 pm on Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Not a ramble. Statement of facts. No comment on whether AMG or City Attorney were good, bad or indifferent. An administrative leave is not a firing. Allowing a contract to elapse is not a firing. Giving required notice of intent to allow a contract to elapse at its specified end is not a firing. The law is the law and contracts are contracts.