March 16, 2026
RE: Item 7D March 17, 2026, Council Agenda
Honorable Members of the City Council of Alameda
If nothing else, President Trump has provided us with a whole host of examples of how politicians and Special Interest Groups (SIGs) are able to manipulate the political process to produce their own preferred outcome by employing quid pro quo arrangements. But let us not conclude that these QPQ deals are used only in Federal politics as observers of state and local politics we have encountered countless examples in Sacramento and even here in Alameda.
Reasonable citizens would expect elected officials who have benefited from financial support provided by SIGs to announce their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from discussions and voting on issues that would potentially benefit or harm the interests of their benefactors.
As more realistic observers, however, we have rarely seen such acknowledgements, let alone recusals by officials who have clear conflicts of interest related to issues pending for discussion and possible voting. And if push comes to shove, the City Attorney has been known to explain that for one reason or another recusal is not required in the particular case in question.
Sometimes the conflict has no element of quid pro quo but relates directly to a question of benefit for the particular official as we have seen in two fairly recent cases involving transportation issues and members of the Council. But much more frequently quid pro quo is at the heart of the conflict as we see when individuals or groups stand to benefit financially by funding or otherwise contributing to candidates who as elected officials will play significant roles in deciding the structure of contracts including what services and/or products are to be provided and how much the City will pay for the contracted services and materials.
I believe the above observations are germane to Item 7D in that it relates to the City’s proposed MOU with employees who as a labor group have funded the printing and distribution of flyers and other materials supporting the campaigns of selected candidates running for a City Office. This is clearly a quid pro quo relationship. The question now is whether the candidates involved will acknowledge their conflicts and recuse themselves from the processes of negotiating the structure and subsequent discussions and voting on the contract itself.
Let us see on the 17th how these conflicted elected officials and the City Attorney deal with the obvious conflicts regarding the City’s contract with the Alameda Police Officers’ Association, one of the groups which can always be counted on to fund political campaigns here in Alameda.
To acknowledge or not to acknowledge. To recuse or not to recuse. These are the questions being asked of members of our City Council.
Jay Garfinkle