City Manager Laura Snideman will soon be joining City Attorney Teresa Sticker in the mass exodus of Richmond’s top managers from City Hall.

Last night, November 9, 2021, with a 6-1 vote in closed session with only me dissenting, the City Council voted to approve a “separation agreement” with City Manager Laura Snideman. The previous week, the City Council had voted 5-1-1, with Martinez abstaining and me dissenting, to approve a proposed separation agreement with one major modification, that being that the City Council would condemn me for comments about the city manager in my E-FORUM.

The City Council followed through with their commitment by adopting a resolution in open session last night condemning me for remarks I made regarding Laura Snideman in three E-FORUMS (City Attorney Goes Off the Rails, November 8, 2021). What were these remarks that five City Council members found so offensive they did something the Richmond City Council has never done before in history – adopt a resolution of condemnation of a member – the mayor no less?

What was so egregious about my E-FORUM comments? You be the judge.

• In “Auditing the City of Richmond,” July 25, 2021, I stated, “Contributing to those risks are actions by the city attorney and city manager to engage outside legal firms for unspecified tasks without complying with the Charter and Municipal Code limit for contracts in excess of $10,000 without City Council authority, a clear abuse of power.”

• On July 31, 2021 in “Baxter Creek Park An Example of City Priorities”), I stated, “This is a prime example of what has gone wrong in Richmond since the ascendance of the Richmond Progressive Alliance and the stewardship and mismanagement of City Manager Laura Snideman and City Attorney Teresa Stricker” and “ The priorities of the Richmond Progressive Alliance and the city manager are not focused on infrastructure and development. Just the opposite, they are focused on opposing development and neglecting infrastructure. The city manager and the city attorney are spending scarce resources funding investigations and trying to dismantle fully entitled projects at Point Molate and Campus Bay instead of taking care of the City. They probably have never been to Baxter Creek Park or even know it exists.”
• In “The Richmond Greenway – From Showcase to Shabby,” August 7, 2021, I stated, “How did this happen? This is the result of a City Manager, Laura Snideman, who does not value Richmond’s appearance and infrastructure and of the City Council majority Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA) members who are not willing to fund parks and infrastructure. Instead, City funds are being spent on frivolous investigations and lawsuits.”

Truth be known, the RPA City Council members were more offended about what I said about the RPA than what I said about the city manager.

In any event, they were so compelled to making the city manager go away that they had no qualms about throwing me under the bus in the process. The RPA City Council members and the others who took this vote are nothing but spineless hypocrites. As a City Council member and mayor, I have a duty to be critical, if warranted, of the city manager, and let her know when and how her actions fall below what I believe the community expects. I have no qualms about using both my position and my 1st Amendment rights to criticize. Indeed, the Charter requires this, stating that the mayor shall be responsible for, “providing civic leadership and taking issues to the people.”

While I’m doing my job and being transparent about it, the RPA City Council members are secretly plotting a coup without the courage of informing either the public or the city manager of their grievances or their intentions. This is gross hypocrisy, pure and simple.

In a related action in last night’s closed session, the City Council voted 5-1, with Nat Bates dissenting and me recused, to refer to the Grand Jury and the district attorney, my authorship of the E-FORUM dated November 5, 2021, “The Rest of the Story.” They claim that I violated an obligation to keep the information confidential, for which there is no basis. On October 19, 2021, (RPA City Council Members Take Nuclear Option), the City Council majority directed the city attorney to file a brief in the Brown Act litigation conceding that the appellants arguments were correct. This is no secret, as the city attorney, herself, reported this action out in open session. It subsequently became the subject of continuing praise, as late as yesterday, by the RPA Greek chorus.

Then, on October 20, 2021, apparently after sleeping on it, the city attorney rebuked the RPA City Council members and made it clear that she would not follow their direction because it was illegal and unethical. The city attorney’s email was marked “Confidential Communication,” and both the city attorney and the RPA City Council members cried “foul” when I disclosed it.

The Brown Act is clear that discussion and information from closed session is confidential, unless it is either improper or reported out in open session. The Brown Act, however, has no confidentiality requirements for an unsolicited email  from the city attorney to City Council members outside of closed session explaining why she cannot comply with their improper and illegal directions. Like the E-FORUM condemnation, the RPA City Councill members were not so much concerned with release of the email as they were embarrassed by its content. Just more hypocrisy.

The idea that any email is confidential is even laughable. Check out hundreds of postings about this on the Internet, such as, “it’s also one of the least secure means of communication in today’s digital world. It compares to sending a postcard – basically anyone along the way who’s interested can read the contents of a message.” If the city attorney really wanted to preserve confidentiality, she would provide confidential information, when proper, only in closed sessions.

Unfortunately, the RPA and its captive City Council members have thrown Richmond city government into perhaps the worst crises of this century. I hope those who support and voted for the RPA are happy with the results.