Comments on: Carlos Plazola: Oakland Deserves Excellent Management

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:57:36 +0000

OH, I am going to TELL !!

By: Max Allstadt

Max Allstadt — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:44:50 +0000

Chris, we better quit while we’re ahead or we’re gonna end up in the principal’s office.

By: Chris Kidd

Chris Kidd — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:35:42 +0000

It’s said that Mecha-Lindheim’s mustache knows no accountability and can shoot green fire 300 feet and bend around corners. His haunting call rings throughout the corridors of city hall: “The report will be forthcoming in 3 months time. Or maybe later. Or maybe never…”

By: Max Allstadt

Max Allstadt — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:00:46 +0000

And watch out for Mecha-Lindheim, who repeats the same rhetoric, with the dubious sincerity of a giant robot.

By: Chris Kidd

Chris Kidd — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:00:45 +0000

The Terrible Ron-zilla! Emits ear-splitting rhetoric and bland platitudes! Smashes cities with his frightening inaction and opaque administration!

Where’s Mothra when we really need her?

By: Max Allstadt

Max Allstadt — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:01:28 +0000

If Mr. Lindheim was smart and accountable, and in touch with the city…

Why the HELL didn’t he stop the Mayor from sacking Claudia Albano?

The mayor makes community policing a huge part of his vision of the “Model City” But when he has an employee who has taken us from 100 neighborhood block-watch groups to over 400 in under a year… he fires her. Guess why he fired her? Not because she screwed up. Not because she was disloyal. Ron Dellums didn’t know she was alive.

And from the looks of it, after 7 months as acting administrator, Lindheim didn’t know about Claudia Albano’s stunning success either. If he did, from a purely political perspective he would have said “Ron, this woman has 400 well organized groups of friends. Firing her would be an incredibly horribly bad idea.” Lindheim did nothing of the sort. So besides lacking the qualifications on paper to meet the City’s stated requirements, he’s proven over 7 months that he’s proven he won’t be good at the job… by being bad at the job.

What does this have to do with 2010? EVERYBODY running in 2010 is going to spend about a third of their campaign time talking about how Dellum’s “Model City” vision turned out to be Dellums trashing our Model City like a drunken fumbling Godzilla.

What’s more, I don’t get why the council is being unanimously soft on Dellums. They could maintain the status quo by keeping Lindheim as “Acting”, and this would simultaneously emasculate Ron Dellums, who totally deserves it. If we can’t recall Godzilla anymore, I say neutering him might make him a little more docile.

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:16:19 +0000

I agree 100% that we need to stop playing politics and get to work. This is why it is imperative that the City select a permanent administrator who is qualified for the position and possess the administrative experience clearly delineated in the City Charter as a prerequisite for the job.

I can’t quite figure out what the choice of City Administrator would have to do with 2010, though.

By: homebase

homebase — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:12:43 +0000

Look folks, Oakland is in crisis – our budget is screwed, angry people are marching in the streets on a near-weekly basis and key positions are empty. This reality is the result of lots of factors, not just the Mayor.

We’ve all called for the Mayor to move forward, to take action. He has done just that with these appointments. Mr Lindheim is a smart, accountable person and with the right team in a permanent position will do fine.

This call to oppose to Mr Lindheim smells like political posturing for 2010.

Its time to stop playing politics and get back to work. I hope the Council approves the appointment and we can all move forward to deal with these serious challenges the city faces.

By: Max Allstadt

Max Allstadt — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:11:16 +0000

Hey man, I was just trying to get us back to the original subject. Although you do remind me of something: if Erin’s nightmare scenario of massive complaint filings came true, the ethics commission would have a huge amount of power ‘cuz they’d get to prioritize stuff.

And as far as lobbying goes, it bothers me no end that the burden is on the civilian instead of the official. Really dumb.

And also given the mess Edgerly made, I have to disagree with you on priorities. Carlos’ complaint is the single most important one in a while. We’re seeing a civilian exercise a check on the Mayor’s power, and not very long after the check was created.

By: John

John — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:38:40 +0000

Max,
I’d make the same general comment about the size of the “fish.” The laws don’t make a distinction in this regard. This would include whether the fish is the City Administrator responsible for implementing all areas of policy in the City of Oakland, a lobbyist and former city official working on a more limited range of policy issues, or a lobbyist with a single issue, the Smoking Ordinance, for example.

The regulations apply equally and don’t distinguish amongst the relative positions of the parties or the pecking order of the fish in the pond. One could quite easily make the case that lobbying council members is a much more critical activity because it is the City Council which makes law in Oakland; neither the Mayor nor the City Administrator do this. The ability to influence legislation could be seen by some as a much more critical concern to a functioning democracy than the fact that one City employee doesn’t have the work history some believe he/she should.