Home » Island News

LENA TAM INVESTIGATION: “Yes, you’ve got a problem there”

Submitted by on 1, July 16, 2010 – 5:00 am27 Comments

City Attorney Teresa Highsmith said that a series of e-mails flagged by Mayor Beverly Johnson’s executive assistant were what started the city’s investigation into City Councilwoman Lena Tam.

“She saw a couple of e-mails (to the mayor) that concerned her and brought them to the City Manager’s attention, because it appeared there was serial meeting violation of the Brown Act,” Highsmith recalled when a reporter contacted her this week.

Since the e-mails were about Highsmith, she contacted Michael Colantuono, who the city has worked with for more than a decade. He reviewed the e-mails and was determined that “yes, you’ve got a problem there,” Highsmith said.

Highsmith said she had already become concerned about Tam at a council meeting in mid-March, when the two tangled over Tam’s questions about some language in SunCal’s negotiating agreement which Highsmith saw as an attempt by Tam to read SunCal’s legal argument into the public record. Colantuono has argued that Tam was acting against the city’s best interest and on SunCal’s behalf.

Highsmith reviewed Tam’s e-mails and compiled those she felt could be evidence of misdeeds to Colantuono, who reviewed them and “decided what was evidence and what wasn’t.”

Thus began the city’s investigation of Tam, the results of which were forwarded to the Alameda County District Attorney’s office on May 26 and July 2. Attorneys there have not yet said whether they will forward the results of the investigation to a grand jury or set them aside, and they did not return calls from The Island seeking comment.

The investigation pits Colantuono, who was just recognized by the California State Bar as Public Lawyer of the Year, against Tam, who has been considered a staunch advocate for open government over her years of services in the community and on government bodies. And it comes as the council is set to decide whether to send SunCal packing.

Tam has been the developer’s most ardent supporter on the council, and Highsmith and Colantuono said they’re concerned she is acting on their behalf instead of the city’s. City staff have recommended the council deny SunCal’s development application, effectively closing the door on the developer.

They were followed less than a week later by accusations by SunCal’s lawyer that Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant deliberately worked to stall the company’s efforts, preventing them from fulfilling their obligations under the negotiating agreement. They put the city and Gallant on notice that they may sue.

“SCC Alameda has worked long and hard on this project and is now being dragged through the mud, causing potentially very substantial harm to its reputation and business as a result,” SunCal’s attorney, Louis R. “Skip” Miller, wrote.

Highsmith said that only Tam was under investigation by the city, and no other members of the council.

“It was 100 percent Lena,” Highsmith said. “There was no authorization, no investigation of any other member of council at all.”

Colantuono accused Tam of leaking confidential information to reps for SunCal and the Alameda Firefighters’ union, bloggers, this reporter and others. And he claimed Tam illegally conducted city business via e-mail when it should have been handled in publicly noticed meetings.

He thinks the grand jury should engage a little-used state statute to remove Tam from office. If a grand jury agrees, she will be barred by the City Charter from holding office in Alameda again.

“If they’re authentic, then I don’t see what’s left to be proved,” Colantuono said of the e-mails. “It’s one thing to be an advocate. It’s another thing to be a spy.”

Neither Tam nor her attorneys would not answer specific questions about the allegations, but she insisted she had done nothing wrong. Tam said she sees the investigation as an effort on the part of Johnson and Gallant to stop her from keeping city government open and honest.

She has said she believes the investigation is payback for concerns she has raised about Gallant’s contracting practices, including branding contracts Gallant awarded to two firms she had worked with in a prior city and a contract for bond business she gave to a firm run by someone she had worked for previously.

“My correspondence shows that I have diligently followed up on tough questions posed to Alameda’s Interim City Manager. They also show that I pushed for those important questions to be set on the Council’s agenda. Apparently some would have preferred that those questions go unanswered,” Tam wrote in an e-mail to The Island.

Tam is alleged to have blind-copied SunCal’s Pat Keliher on three emails, including two in which she requests a closed session to discuss Highsmith’s job performance after a March 16 meeting where the two tangled over SunCal’s exclusive negotiating agreement and one in which she requests a project description for an environmental impact report on SunCal’s proposed development.

She is also alleged to have forwarded an e-mail to Keliher that Highsmith sent to council members titled “Head’s up on SunCal blog,” which appears to talk about whether the company’s chief operating officer, Frank Faye, planned to write that the company had “cured” a default issued by the city, and about Faye’s e-mail use during negotiations. The e-mail was labeled “attorney-client privilege.”

She also blind-copied a representative of the local firefighters’ union on e-mails that included information about meetings that two ambulance companies vying for Alameda County’s contract had with local unions and Alameda Fire Chief David Kapler and a letter from Paramedics Plus, one of the companies, that said it would not be cost-effective for them to provide service in Alameda, in local firefighters’ stead, the investigation appears to show.

And another e-mail she sent to a pair of bloggers and this reporter from a financial advisor offering dirt on Gallant’s job performance in another city violated personnel confidentiality rules, Colantuono said. Another went to a local blogger with a host of confidential closed-session reports attached, he said.

Colantuono also said that e-mails Tam sent to Johnson and Councilman Frank Matarrese about the closed session for Highsmith and another to discuss the job Kapler was doing were intended to gather a consensus to take action against the pair, a violation of the state’s “serial meeting” rules.

Tam is also accused of interfering in Gallant’s job because she questioned Kapler’s job performance directly instead of going through Gallant and because she talked with financial adviser Lonnie Odom about the city’s efforts to hire a team to refinance some city bonds. Odom had contacted council members after his efforts to work with the team than won the business fell through.

Colantuono said he believes Tam violated the Brown Act by sending e-mails to a quorum of council members, in an effort to achieve a consensus on public business outside of a public meeting. And he said the fact that she sent blind copies to other council members showed she knew what she was doing was wrong. Forwarding information without expecting a response isn’t a violation of the Brown Act, two experts contacted by The Island said. But a deliberation, or an invitation to deliberate, is a violation, they said.

But he stopped short of calling some of Tam’s other alleged actions illegal. When a reporter asked if it was illegal for Tam to have forwarded an-email from a financial adviser who said he had dirt on Gallant’ past job performance, Colantuono said, “It is clumsy and foolish to use e-mail traffic to dig up dirt on employees that report to you.” He said the discovery of the e-mail chain could provide an employee who is the subject of it leverage against if city leaders wanted to fire that person.

Colantuono said Tam should not have forwarded the Paramedics Plus letter to firefighters because she is prohibited from releasing materials related to lawsuits until they are resolved. But when a reporter asked whether the document might not have been released to a member of the public if they requested it, he conceded it might be considered a public document, though “they certainly wouldn’t get the email traffic about the letter.”

The Island contacted a pair of Brown Act experts to ask whether they believed Tam’s alleged actions violated the Brown Act. Terry Francke of Californians Aware said he didn’t think e-mails Tam allegedly cc’ed to Keliher regarding Highsmith’s job performance violated the Brown Act.

“It sounds to me as if these are simply a head’ s up to her perceived ally, a ‘Here’s what I’m doing about this,’” Francke said.

Francke also questioned whether Odom’s e-mail should be considered confidential personnel information, though he said Gallant could complain that it constitutes an invasion of her privacy.

“That’s not a disclosure of personnel information,” he said.

But James Chadwick, a partner at Sheppard Mullin in Menlo Park, said Tam’s apparent e-mails to council members could be considered a violation of the Brown Act.

“The Brown Act has for a long time been generally construed to prohibit serial communications on any subject that is before, or likely to come before, a legislative body like the City Council. Those communications really shouldn’t take place outside of a public meeting. Because even if you’re not specifically trying to achieve a consensus, it’s a violation of the Brown Act,” Chadwick said. “If she’s e-mailing a majority of the City Council on matters that are before or may come before the City Council, then that’s probably a violation of the Brown Act.”

He said attorney-client privilege, which Tam is accused of violating, was put in place to protect clients, not attorneys. But it’s not clear whether Tam would be considered the client allowed to breach that confidentiality or if the whole council would have to agree.

Closed session reports as a general rule shouldn’t be released, Chadwick said – unless the person releasing them believes they are to be improperly discussed behind closed doors.

Highsmith said the district attorney’s office asked that Colantuono’s investigation be kept quiet. But she said she felt the need to reveal them as decisions about SunCal came to a head and closed-door sessions on contract negotiations with Alameda’s firefighters approached.

“I could no longer ethically avoid going into closed session to protect the city’s interest,” said Highsmith, who denied the investigation was political payback.

On July 7, a day after the Tam investigation was disclosed to the council and the rest of the public, Tam was asked to recuse herself from a closed-door meeting set up to talk about negotiations over a property on Harbor Bay Parkway and a lawsuit between the city and would-be Boatworks developer Francis Collins.

And will Tam be asked not to vote on whether to deny SunCal’s plan this coming Tuesday? “That remains to be seen,” Highsmith said.


  • Richard Bangert says:

    “And will Tam be asked not to vote on whether to deny SunCal’s plan this coming Tuesday?”

    On what grounds would she be asked not to vote? She hasn’t been charged with anything, yet, let alone convicted. Barring her from voting would only furnish more fodder to the diminishing dignity of the process as accusations flourish about personalities.

    I have a hard enough time keeping up with stated agendas, with not much time left over for hidden agendas.

    • Richard,

      Excellent question. I imagine the hope on all sides is that the DA makes a quick determination of whether this is a case or not – and by quick I mean before Tuesday night. I know I’ll be waiting to see who asks who to do what (or not do what) the night of the vote, and why.

      On a side note, I looked at Tuesday’s agendas and it appears the mayor is asking the council to suspend the activities of the Sunshine Task Force until the DA decides what to do. She had called for John Knox White to resign because he received some e-mails from Tam, but he has said he’s not going to do that and that he has not done anything wrong. Wednesday night, Jeff Mitchell – who is a member of the committee – said he would ask the council to reconsider efforts to kick Knox White off the task force, which is what they were expecting Johnson to request, and he urged them to send a letter in saying the same.

  • Barbara Thomas says:

    Even if the DA acts quickly, nothing can possibly be done before Tuesday night. If charges are filed, they could take years to resolve. Especially with an attorney getting paid $900 per hour. The Grand Jury couldn’t review and make a recommendation for months at least.

    No I think TAM gets to vote. In public and for all to see. If for some reason the ENA is extended after TAM/SUNCAL’s actions on receiving the confidential emails, they will both undoubtedly be forced to undergo further legal scrutiny. That is par for SUNCAL as those who have watched its bankruptcy trials know. Any recovery of damages for what SUNCAL/TAM did to the City of Alameda, at least from SUNCAL, will undoubtedly come to us in the form of meaningless bankruptcy claims after years and years of litigation. Take a short drive to Oak Knoll and see first hand what SUNCAL can do for a community. Or should I say, To a community. Starting with its Bait and Switch development, misrepresentative signature gathering, and so forth.

    Any damages from TAM to the employees, union or City coffers to whom she caused legal harm, will have to wait. The key point to be learned from SUNCAL/TAM is that unless good people take the initiative and run for City Council, Alameda is doomed to have self-serving persons who put their interests first, on its Council. And many will not do that until the citizens and staff pony up and change the charter to pay the Council more than $50 a meeting. This is what we get for $50 a meeting: Councilmembers who are so easily influenced by outside interests, that he or she will sell the voters out for a few pats on the back and maybe a “free” lunch. Selling out is nothing new. It just amazes me how little our officials get for their sales price.

  • Dennis Green says:

    Well, Michele has finally revealed her support of SunCal, although when I attempted to get her to declare her position on Measure B, months ago, she declined, and said simply that her real problem was with a city council that kicked this whole issue off to the voters! So now we all know where she’s really coming from. And that’s okay. We need to know who supports TamGate/SunCal, and who does not. Credibility hinges on such divisions, and development of the Point, aka “AlPo,” is just one of those basic tests of integrity and credibility. I will be very astonished if this post makes it past Michele’s usual “Your comment is awaiting moderation” test.


  • Incredulous says:

    Barb Thomas indicates, by implication, that Lena Tam’s lawyer John Keker charges $900 per hour. I’ve seen a news story which reported that a famous athlete who was in hot water decided not to hire Mr. Keker because the athlete thought $900 per hour was too expensive.

    So assuming the $900 per hour figure is true, how is Lena Tam able to pay a lawyer $900 per hour on her East Bay MUD salary?

    Even at $500 per hour, how can she afford to pay Mr. Keker?

    This is a very legitimate question for the public to be asking.

    Michele did a good job in contacting Jim Chadwick and Terry Francke for unbiased comment. Michele, why not contact them, as well as Michael Colantuono, and ask for an explanation of (1) how a California elected official can lawfully accept payment of his/her attorneys fees by third parties and (2) what disclosures to the public of such payment are required, when they are required, and how much detail is required.

    Sarah Palin is the only “elected official” in my recent memory who had a defense fund to which third parties contributed, and under Alaska’s laws it was not lawfully set up or lawfully operated, and ended up creating a gigantic mess for Ms. Palin.

    I simply cannot recall any California elected official having a defense fund paid by third parties, so I’d like to read some of these “public law” experts opinions on the question.

  • Jack B. says:

    >>> Well, Michele has finally revealed her support of SunCal…

    Dennis, what does Michele say above that convinces you of this? Because I’m not seeing it.

  • Dennis Green says:

    Jack B, I’m thinking of changing my moniker to “Incredulous” after your last post! She dismisses the notion that “Sunshine Boy,” JKW, has disqualified himself from public service forever, by not informing officialdom that he was receiving privileged information. You don’t have a problem with that? Okay. So if her support of Sunshine Boy is not bad enough, she also calls for a judgment before the SunCal deadline, and again, you’re okay with that? Nothing partisan here. Just another “news site,” aka, “Blog,” doing her best to report the news while at the same time defending her favorite Sunshine Boyz??? How very professional…


  • Jack B. says:

    Dennis, I don’t see any judgements on her part. Not in the article, and not in her comment above.

    I ask you again: what words do you see that supports your statement >>> Well, Michele has finally revealed her support of SunCal…

    I’m not seeing it.

  • Curiouser says:

    What I want to know is: why do all of Barbara’s posts capitalize Lena Tam’s last name?

  • Incredulous says:

    By the way, stay focused on simple facts folks.

    If an attorney for a city prepares a document marked “Attorney Client Privileged”, it is presented to the client under the closed session part of the Brown Act and it ends up in the hands of some outsider, that is the “Brown Act Violation” which is the slam dunk.

    Ignore the issue of serial meetings.

    Again, here’s the Government Code Section which Colantuono’s memo focuses on:

    Cal. Government Code Section 54963.

    (a) A person may not disclose confidential information that
    has been acquired by being present in a closed session authorized by
    Section 54956.7, 54956.8, 54956.86, 54956.87, 54956.9, 54957,
    54957.6, 54957.8, or 54957.10 to a person not entitled to receive it,
    unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that
    confidential information.

    (b) For purposes of this section, “confidential information” means
    a communication made in a closed session that is specifically
    related to the basis for the legislative body of a local agency to
    meet lawfully in closed session under this chapter.

    (c) Violation of this section may be addressed by the use of such
    remedies as are currently available by law, including, but not
    limited to:

    (1) Injunctive relief to prevent the disclosure of confidential
    information prohibited by this section.

    (2) Disciplinary action against an employee who has willfully
    disclosed confidential information in violation of this section.

    (3) Referral of a member of a legislative body who has willfully
    disclosed confidential information in violation of this section to
    the grandjury.

  • Jon Spangler says:

    Dennis Green is seeing things–or making them up. (I could understand that–he DID teach “creative writing,” after all. Maybe he dabbled in “creative reading,” too.) There is a fundamental difference, however, between fiction (Dennis Green’s claimed specialty) and nonfiction (Michelle Ellson’s demonstrated field of expertise).

    Perhaps he “found” the “evidence” that Michelle Ellson is biased under his bed, where he keeps his paranoid conspiracy theories:

    “I will be very astonished if this post makes it past Michele’s usual “Your comment is awaiting moderation” test.”

  • Jon Spangler says:


    Don’t forget the following applicable sections of the Brown Act, Code section 54963, which you omitted (EMPHASIS added):

    (e) A local agency MAY NOT take any action authorized by
    subdivision (c) against a person, nor shall it be deemed a violation
    of this section, for doing any of the following:
    (1) Making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district
    attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived violation of law,
    including disclosing facts to a district attorney or grand jury that
    are necessary to establish the illegality of an action taken by a
    legislative body of a local agency or the potential illegality of an
    action that has been the subject of deliberation at a closed session
    if that action were to be taken by a legislative body of a local
    (2) Expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of
    actions taken by a legislative body of a local agency in closed
    session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal
    or potentially illegal action.
    (3) Disclosing information acquired by being present in a closed
    session under this chapter that is not confidential information.
    (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit
    disclosures under the whistleblower statutes contained in Section
    1102.5 of the Labor Code or Article 4.5 (commencing with Section
    53296) of Chapter 2 of this code.

    Subsections 2) and 3) above, as well as the whistleblower statutes referred to, seem to apply to some of Lena Tam’s alleged violations.

  • Jill says:

    Did Lena Tam incur personal financial benefits from any of this?

  • Dennis Green says:

    Jon & Jill, you obviously don’t understand how politics, or journalism, work. As I’ve said before, “Amateur Night” on The Island. I’m glad to see you both pitching in, but if you think political favoritism requires a blank check in the mail, or journalistic favoritism requires a direct endorsement, sorry, that’s not how they work. And as I said before, ironically, Michele and I both practice “creative writing” in our blogs. Mine is just a little more authentic than hers. As for Jon, well, SciFi would be too generous a genre designation for him. We’ve all seen his name, and that of his wife, on the latest ads touting SunCal’s development of the Point, so why would we consider them impartial?

  • Linda Hudson says:

    But Dennis, really, Michelle is a better reporter and writer than you are. That seems to annoy you no end. And since I’m not working in “hard news,” my partiality, or lack thereof, is not relevant. I must add, though, that your transparent attempts to market your own blog on “The Island” are pitiful.

  • DaveL. says:

    Barbara, it would seem to me that one who has gone into the locked office of another and has taken something without permission should be careful of accusing others.

  • Dennis Green says:

    Oh, Linda, don’t blame me for the fact that you married outside the tribe. With so many intelligent men like me around!

    I am in love with Michele, obviously, but more for her youth and her looks than her journalistic skills. Don’t, please, hold that against me.

    Your “hard news” efforts are pathetic, and I don’t really care about marketing my blog or anything else I write. As I say, having even one intelligent reader is audience enough, and I have 50 Chums who would agree. I don’t need you, or any of the readers of this blog reading mine. Don’t think you’d get it.

    So you use words like “pitiful” and I use words like “pathetic” and both of us exhibit just how legitimate a “news” site this blog really is. Go hug your hubby, he’s been crying all day long!

  • Incredulous says:

    @ Spangler. The subsections you cite are not relevant in this situation:

    (e)(1) Lenat Tam was not making a confidential inquiry to the D.A. Tam was leaking attorney client privileged documents to SunCal’s employees and lawyer.

    (e)(2) Lena Tam was not expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of actions taken in closed session. Tam was leaking attorney client privileged documents to SunCal’s employees and lawyer.

    (e)(3) Lena Tam was not disclosing non-confidential information obtained in closed seession. Tam was leaking attorney client privileged documents to SunCal’s employees and lawyer.

    (f) Lena Tam was not acting a a whistleblower under Section
    1102.5 of the Labor Code or under Section 53296 of the Government Code.

    Lena Tam was handing over attorney client privileged information to a potential adversary of the City. That is exacly what Anthony Pellicano was doing. He’s now in Federal prison for 16 years. In adddition, the former partner of SunCal’s lawyer, Skip Milloer, was sentenced to 3 years in Federal prison for doing the same thing. See:


    It’s no wonder Lena Tam has hired John Keker, a criminal defense attorney who allegedly charges $900 an hour for his services. [By the way nobody ever answered the question of when Lena Tam is getting the money to pay Keker, on her “normal public servant’s salary” at East Bay MUD.]

    And, Jon Spangler, the last time I check, you’re not a member of the State Bar of Californis, so you don’t know what you are talking about in Lena Tam’s defense. See: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member.aspx

    In contrast, Michael Colantuono, who wrote the report about Lena Tam’s miscounduct, was elected by the State Bar of California as “Public Lawyer” of the year, i.e. the state’s pre-eminent public law expert.

    So who, Jon Spangler, it’s obvious you don’t have a clue what you ar talking about from a legal poing of view.

  • Linda Hudson says:

    Married outside what tribe? That makes no sense–no surprise there.

    I’ve got better journalism creds than you, pal, and my in-laws were in the top tier of news reporters. People I worked for worked for them, so we have a lot in common, including a very bright son/husband.

    That said, I think it’s obvious that you’re going for the cheap shot, so there appears to be no hope for any meaningful dialog. Flaming gets old fast, so adios, DG.

  • Jon Spangler says:

    @ Incredulous,

    There is a lengthy and consistent “back story” behind the accusations against Lena Tam involving possible abuses of both closed session agendas and confidentiality, as well as the fact that Lena Tam has taken a lead role in holding the Interim City Manager accountable for some of her more questionable actions. There is also the rather obvious possibility or probability that the charges against Tam are politically motivated and/or selective in nature.

    There are also conflicting views of the accuracy and validity of the allegations actually contained in the ICM’s letters to the DA. I do not have to be a member of the California State Bar to take a stance on these matters. (I do happen to be relying on John Russo and Terry Francke, both of whom are well-known experts on CA public records laws and the Brown Act. BTW, they happen to be members of the CA State Bar. Is that good enough for you?)

    I may not be an attorney, but last time I checked my First Amendment rights, I do not need to be one to either:

    a) point out incomplete citations of the Brown Act here, or

    b) make comments about pending local issues. Since I never claimed to be an attorney and never offered legal services, I believe it is permissible for me to quote California state law, too. (Or is citing the law the sacred and sole sanctuary of the legal profession? Last time I looked, any citizen could do that, but please forgive me for stepping outside my caste and infringing on your sacrosanct space…)

    I also do not need or require either a law degree or your permission to be absolutely “incredulous” at the ICM’s violations of city regulations about competitive bidding. (She was called on the carpet for this in open session by the City Council when this came to light on June 15, BTW. Check the official video: I was there, and so was Tony Daysog.)

  • ct says:

    Mr Green,

    “We need to know who supports TamGate/SunCal, and who does not. Credibility hinges on such divisions.” This sounds more like a divisive call to be either with us or against us, not a genuine attempt to learn the truth. As a journalist writing a news story, Ms Ellson does her best to report the facts in an effort to present the truth; it’s not her job to take sides. That sort of writing belongs on a clearly delineated Opinion/Editorial page.

    The allegations made against Lena Tam are now under investigation; they should be treated as allegations, not as fact, until proven otherwise.

  • Mike says:

    I’m no fan of Lena Tam or JKW, but y’all really ought to take a chill pill and wait and see what the DA comes back with.

    I am a fan of Michele and her blog here and have followed her writing for some time. I imagine we agree on some stuff and disagree on some other stuff.
    I’m personally dead-set against Sun Cal, but really have no idea what Michele’s sentiments on that are.

    Dennis, if you’re concerned, why don’t you just ask her?

  • Mike says:

    I would also just like to add; what about showing a little appreciation for Michele providing a service (this forum) in the noblest tradition of free speech and first amendment rights?

    I don’t think it’s good manners to insult one’s host. And, I think one ought pay for whatever one enjoys.

    That’s why, I’d like to invite some of the frequent posters here (on whatever side of whatever issue) to pony up and make a contribution via paypal to this blog… a pillar of democracy.

    I’ve made my contributions and invite you to make and brag about yours!

  • elliottg says:

    When someone can tell me why the investigating attorney would put his professional and political reputation on the line for a political hatchet job then I’ll start listening. Friendship and money would not be enough for such unequivocal conclusions from such a well-respected lawyer.

    It seems to me that Tam whether guilty of a crime was doing exactly what the Brown Act was designed to prevent – trying to move the decision making process forward in private rather than public. So it’s hard for me to see how she was keeping to the spirit of the law even if she skates on the letter of the law.

    And spare me your complaints about the ICM because that really is not relevant to the above two questions. I’m adding that caveat because I really want information and not political BS.

  • ct says:


    You’d have to ask Mr Colantuono about why he’d “put his professional and political reputation on the line for a political hatchet job.” Based on information presented by the firefighters union (www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/07/alameda-firefighters-break-silence-on-tam-investigation/) and blogger Lauren Do (laurendo.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/dont-forget-to-stretch/, laurendo.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/reading-between-the-redactions/) disproving some of the ICM’s allegations against Lena Tam, it appears that Mr Colantuono’s investigative efforts were rather sloppy in providing evidence to back up the ICM’s accusations. Not an indication of brilliant work from an award-winning lawyer.

    And unless you are an attorney with Brown Act expertise, it seems any speculation about the ICM’s allegations is a waste of time.

  • elliottg says:


    Thanks for not answering the question. You refer me to two sets of people who do NOT have Brown Act expertise as your supposed support for your position without answering my questions then tell me not to bother unless I have a level of expertise that your the people who you suggest have refuted the charges do not.

  • ct says:


    It clearly wasn’t my intent to “refer [you] to two sets of people who do NOT have Brown Act expertise”; I referred you to two sets of people whom the ICM implicated in her allegations against Lena Tam, and who provide evidence to prove the ICM’s allegations involving them are wrong.

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.