From: Dan Tuazon
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 7-D: Eliminating Elected Financial Oversight Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 1:37:50 PM
Dear Madam Mayor and Alameda City Council Members
As a 65-year resident of Alameda, I have been involved in our community and must speak up when certain issues arise. On July 7, you will hold a meeting and perhaps decide on placing on the November 2026 election the elimination of the Elected Financial Oversight currently held by Mr Kevin Kennedy and Mr Kevin Kearney commonly referred to as "The Kevins"
Awhile back there was an election to replace The Kevins whose sole purpose was to eliminate the Elected positions. The citizens of Alameda voted and The Kevins won in a landslide. I believe if this is put on the November 2026 ballot the result will be overwhelmingly the same. Alamedans do not want to lose their voting rights.
And Alamedans must have an independent oversight on how we should spend our tax dollars.
The Constitution of the United States starts up with "We the People". We the People reserves the right to vote for our Mayor and our Council Members. We the People reserves the right to also vote for our City Treasurer and our City Auditor.
Sincerely and Thank you for your time.
Dan Tuazon
Concern Citizen
July 6, 2026 Re: July 7, 2026 City Council Meeting, Items 7-A, 7-B, 7-C and 7-D Greetings Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers Daysog, Boller, Jensen, and Pryor, Your dedication to serving our community and carefully considering the goals and desires of your constituents is commendable. I am appealing to this deep commitment to public service as I request that you pause and invest more thought into the highly consequential decisions on the July 7, 2026 City Council meeting agenda related to proposed Charter amendments. Every Alameda resident will be affected by these measures, as each will have direct and permanent bearing on how Alameda is governed. I request that you VOTE NO on Agenda Items 7-A, 7-B, 7-C, and 7-D. These items all require additional public review, and therefore any decision on them should be postponed. Agenda Item 7-A — Proposed $300M Infrastructure Bond While it is critical that we invest in Alameda’s infrastructure, the current language of the proposed bond measure is perilously vague about how our funds would be allocated or prioritized. It is irresponsible to ask taxpayers to take on the enormity of a $300 million bond without presenting an itemized, in-depth, and transparent project list that identifies which projects will be funded first, the estimated costs of each project, and the criteria that will be used to allocate the funds. We as a community face an urgent need to adjust for sea level rise across the city, and to take robust action toward strengthening the deteriorating sidewalks, potholes, and other fundamental components of our neighborhoods’ existing infrastructure. These are fundamental municipal responsibilities. Such routine maintenance expenses should be cared for within the Alameda’s General Fund and ongoing capital planning, rather than relying primarily on broad borrowing authority without clearly defined spending commitments. Item 7-A will affect the budgets of Alamedans in a very tangible way. The Bay Area is facing a housing affordability crisis, and the proposed bond measure would put further financial constraints on families and individuals, including renters who would also likely see an increase in their rents as a result. Voters deserve more information and greater certainty before being asked to approve a bond of this magnitude. Agenda Item 7-B — Charter “Cleanup” Measure Item 7-B should be removed from consideration at this time; it is a hodgepodge of different issues that must be re-worked to address each one coherently. The proposal combines two repeals and nineteen separate Charter amendments into a single ballot measure. Many of the proposed changes address entirely different subjects. Packaging so many unrelated amendments together makes it difficult for both the Council and the public to thoughtfully evaluate each proposal on its own merits. Additionally, public trust is weakened because this conglomeration approach gives an uneasy sense that bad ideas are being swept in along with the good.
Particularly concerning is the proposed modification to qualification requirements for members of important advisory boards and commissions. Alameda should not join the flight from expertise that has become sadly prevalent in our national government. Our city benefits from having qualified professionals—including engineers, architects, contractors, and subject matter experts who help guide decisions affecting our infrastructure, utilities, and historic resources. We must not weaken those qualifications. Charter amendments are serious agreements that we make with our neighbors about how we wish Alameda to be governed. Each one merits its own thorough analysis and independent public debate rather than being lumped into a single catch-all measure. Please separate these issues to promote transparency, encourage informed public participation, and strengthen confidence in the process. Agenda Item 7-C — Changes to Public Land Approval Requirements I strongly encourage the Council to vote No on this proposal. Public lands are not a trivial asset to be bought and sold on a whim. These lands are public and therefore belong to all Alameda residents. Decisions involving the sale or long-term lease of public property must continue to require broad consensus. Currently, the requirement of a supermajority vote and multiple public meetings provides an important safeguard that encourages research, transparency, deliberation, and community participation before irreversible decisions are made. Lowering the voting threshold while reducing opportunities for public review endangers those protections. The existing requirements should be maintained (or even strengthened!) to help ensure that significant decisions involving public assets receive broad public support and reasoned consideration. Agenda Item 7-D — Elimination of the Elected Auditor and Treasurer Item 7-D should be removed from consideration. The elected Auditor and Treasurer positions play critical roles in providing independent financial oversight, which is a cornerstone of good governance. These experts provide accountability directly to Alameda voters and serve as important checks within the City’s financial management structure. Eliminating independently elected financial oversight raises legitimate concerns about transparency and accountability. Alameda depends on the Auditor and Treasurer for independent review to help reduce the risk of financial errors, conflicts of interest, and potential fraud while strengthening public confidence in the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Our community deserves a comprehensive public discussion evaluating the long-term implications and possible alternatives to these positions, before such a significant change is considered. While administrative efficiencies may be worth discussing, outright elimination of the roles is ill-advised.
In summary, these proposed Charter amendments would permanently alter important aspects of Alameda’s government, and so deserve much greater public engagement and analysis before they are considered for a vote. As longtime homeowners in Alameda, we urge the Council to vote NO on all of these agenda items, so that each proposal can be re-evaluated through in-depth public review and independent evaluation. The City Charter should be treated with greater care and consensus. Thank you for serving Alameda faithfully and listening to the citizens whom you represent. Respectfully, Mary Levy and Steven Levy Alameda Residents July 7, 2026
Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the Alameda City Council:
Re: Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D – Proposed Charter Amendments and Ballot Measures
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers,
Alameda Citizens Task Force respectfully urges the Council to postpone consideration of Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D, and defer placing these measures before the voters until the City has provided a more deliberate, transparent, and legally defensible public process.
The Alameda City Charter is not an ordinary policy document. It functions as the City's constitution.
Amendments should therefore be considered only after the public has received clear notice of the specific changes under consideration and a meaningful opportunity to evaluate their legal and practical consequences.
Although the Council possesses the authority to propose Charter amendments, that authority carries a corresponding obligation to ensure that the legislative process satisfies the fundamental principles of transparency, informed public participation, and procedural fairness. When government proposes permanent structural changes to its governing framework, the public process should exceed the minimum legal requirements rather than merely satisfy them.
Several of the proposed Charter amendments appear to have developed through an accelerated internal staff process that has not afforded residents sufficient time to review the legal ramifications of each proposal. The agenda materials describe these measures as routine updates or administrative improvements, yet several provisions would substantially alter the allocation of governmental authority, public oversight, and voter protections. Characterizing significant structural revisions as "housekeeping" risks obscuring their true legal effect.
Moreover, presenting numerous Charter revisions simultaneously places an unreasonable burden on the electorate. Even if each proposal is individually lawful, the cumulative effect is to require voters to evaluate multiple fundamental governmental changes within a compressed timeframe. Sound public administration favors incremental reform supported by extensive public engagement rather than wholesale revision under ordinary legislative scheduling.
ACT is also concerned that the Council has not adequately demonstrated why these amendments require immediate placement on the November ballot. Charter amendments are intended to endure for decades.
A delay of several months to permit additional study, public workshops, and independent legal review would not prejudice the City's interests but would materially improve public confidence in the outcome.
From a legal perspective, California courts have long recognized that open government depends not only upon technical compliance with statutory notice requirements but also upon ensuring that citizens receive meaningful notice sufficient to understand the matters upon which their elected representatives intend to act. When significant governmental restructuring is proposed, transparency requires more than publication of agenda packets shortly before a meeting. It requires a process that genuinely facilitates informed civic participation.
Accordingly, Alameda Citizens Task Force respectfully requests that the Council:
1. Withdraw Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D from consideration at this time;
2. Direct the City Attorney to prepare a comprehensive legal analysis explaining the practical effect of each proposed Charter amendment;
3. Conduct a series of publicly noticed community workshops devoted exclusively to Charter reform;
4. Allow sufficient time for written public comment before any future vote to place Charter amendments on the ballot; and
5. Consider each substantive Charter amendment independently rather than as part of broader omnibus measures whenever practicable.
The legitimacy of our City's governing Charter depends as much upon the fairness of the amendment process as upon the substance of the amendments themselves. Alameda residents deserve an open, deliberate, and transparent process before being asked to approve permanent changes to the City's foundational governing document.
Respectfully submitted,
Alameda Citizens Task Force
From: Reyla Graber
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Do not approve Charter Changes Tuesday- please Date: Monday, July 6, 2026 6:07:17 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I disagree with your attempt to seek approval Tuesday of several ballot measures which would change our City Charter without adequate discussion or input from residents.Yes, it will be on the November ballot and still without adequate analysis or feedback from residents.
I don't believe this is good government practice, I'm shocked and I hope and trust it will not be approve
tomorrow evening.
Reyla Graber
Alameda Resident
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Why not drop Charter Amendment proposal 7/7/2026 item 7-D file 2026-6080: elimination of elected office of Treasurer & Auditor
Date: Monday, July 6, 2026 5:25:12 AM
Mayor Ezzy-Ashcraft & Council Members,
Salary increases above inflation for
Executive Management Employees
(EXME) Salary Schedule from 6% to
14.85% (nothing personal but are Santa
Monica and Pasadena really in the
"market area"?) on the consent calendar
AND at the same time working to eliminate
the Treasurer and Auditor from their status
as elected officials is not a good look!
Justifying a November ballot initiative to
remove the Treasurer and Auditor from
elected status because you get a deal
from the registrar-of-voters in a 2-for-one
initiative price? That is a terrific example of
why elected financial officers are needed:
to see the bigger picture.
In my opinion, elected Treasurer and
Auditor officials as representative of
Alameda can more independently evaluate
economic issues that affect the Quality of
Life both now and for future
generations. For example, bay shoreline
commercial usage (did BCDC OK?), retail
rezoning for housing on fill, and
irreversible park privatization schemes all
involve economic guesses as to future
benefits vs the real costs to present
residents including their future loss of
options. Having knowledgeable and
experienced review of the analysis of
these projects could enhance the council's
decision-making and public confidence.
Unfortunately I didn't follow the supposed
economic savings from reduced payroll
which appeared to claim 31k$ each. Was
an "AI" program the supposed
replacement?
By the way, democratic Athens, designed
by Cleisthenes, only elected a few types of
officers one of which was Treasurer.
(Military officers and water managers were
other elected officers.)
Please drop the item 7D proposal from
your agenda.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Roberta Hough
911 San Antonio Ave
July 5, 2026
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers Pryor, Boller, Daysog and Jensen, Re: July 7, 2026 City Council Meeting, Items 7-A, 7-B, 7-C and 7-D I appreciate the many hours of work that the City Council, staff, and commissions dedicate to serving
our
community.
The
decisions
before
you
regarding
the
proposed
Charter
amendments
are
among
the
most
significant
that
Alameda
residents
will
consider
in
many
years
.
Because
these
measures
could
permanently
change
how
our
city
is
governed,
I
respectfully
ask
that
you
vote
No
on
Agenda
Items
7-A,
7-B,
7-C,
and
7-D
,
and
postpone
these
items
that
require
additional
public
review.
Agenda Item 7-A — Proposed $300M Infrastructure Bond I support investing in Alameda’s infrastructure, but I do not believe the proposed bond measure provides
voters
with
sufficient
clarity
regarding
how
the
proceeds
would
be
allocated
or
prioritized.
A $300 million bond represents a substantial long-term financial commitment for Alameda taxpayers.
Before
asking
residents
to
approve
borrowing
of
this
magnitude,
the
City
should
present
a
clear,
detailed,
and
transparent
project
list
that
identifies
which
projects
will
be
funded
first,
the
estimated
costs
of
each
project,
and
the
criteria
that
will
be
used
to
allocate
the
funds.
If Alameda’s most pressing infrastructure needs are to be addressed, I believe the highest priorities
should
include
preparing
for
sea
level
rise
and
maintaining
the
city’s
existing
infrastructure,
particularly
repairing
deteriorating
sidewalks
and
potholes
throughout
our
neighborhoods.
These
are
fundamental
municipal
responsibilities
that
residents
experience
every
day.
Routine
maintenance
should
remain
a
priority
within
the
City’s
General
Fund
and
ongoing
capital
planning
rather
than
relying
primarily
on
broad
borrowing
authority
without
clearly
defined
spending
commitments.
Considering
the
Bay
Area
is
facing
a
housing
affordability
crisis,
the
proposed
bond
measure
would
also
put
further
financial
constraints
on
families
and
individuals,
including
renters
who
would
also
likely
see
an
increase
in
their
rents
as
a
result.
Voters deserve greater certainty before being asked to approve a bond of this size.
Agenda Item 7-B — Charter “Cleanup” Measure
I respectfully request that Item 7-B be removed from consideration at this time.
This proposal combines two repeals and nineteen separate Charter amendments into a single ballot
measure
despite
the
fact
that
many
of
the
proposed
changes
address
entirely
different
subjects.
Bundling
numerous
unrelated
amendments
together
makes
it
difficult
for
both
the
Council
and
the
public
to
thoughtfully
evaluate
each
proposal
on
its
own
merits.
Some of these changes, including modifications to qualification requirements for members of important
advisory
boards
and
commissions,
deserve
independent
public
discussion.
Alameda
benefits
from
having
qualified
professionals—including
engineers,
architects,
contractors,
and
subject
matter
experts
who
help
guide
decisions
affecting
our
infrastructure,
utilities,
and
historic
resources.
Each proposed Charter amendment should receive its own careful analysis and public debate rather
than
being
grouped
into
one
comprehensive
measure.
Separating
these
issues
would
promote
transparency,
encourage
informed
public
participation,
and
strengthen
confidence
in
the
process.
Agenda Item 7-C — Changes to Public Land Approval Requirements I respectfully urge the Council to vote No on this proposal.
Public lands belong to all Alameda residents. Decisions involving the sale or long-term lease of public
property
should
continue
to
require
broad
consensus.
The existing requirement of a supermajority vote and multiple public meetings provides an important
safeguard
that
encourages
transparency,
deliberation,
and
community
participation
before
irreversible
decisions
are
made.
Lowering
the
voting
threshold
while
reducing
opportunities
for
public
review
diminishes
those
protections.
Maintaining the current requirements helps ensure that significant decisions involving public assets
receive
broad
public
support
and
careful
consideration.
Agenda Item 7-D — Elimination of the Elected Auditor and Treasurer I respectfully request that this item also be removed from consideration.
Independent financial oversight is a cornerstone of good government. The elected Auditor and Treasurer
provide
accountability
directly
to
Alameda
voters
and
serve
as
important
checks
within
the
City’s
financial
management
structure.
While administrative efficiencies may be worth discussing, eliminating independently elected financial
oversight
raises
legitimate
concerns
about
transparency
and
accountability.
Independent
review
helps
reduce
the
risk
of
financial
errors,
conflicts
of
interest,
and
potential
fraud
while
strengthening
public
confidence
in
the
stewardship
of
taxpayer
dollars.
Before considering such a significant governance change, I believe the community deserves a comprehensive
public
discussion
evaluating
the
long-term
implications
and
possible
alternatives.
These proposed Charter amendments would permanently alter important aspects of Alameda’s government.
Changes
of
this
magnitude
should
proceed
only
after
robust
public
engagement,
careful
analysis,
and
broad
community
consensus.
I respectfully ask the Council to v ote No on all of these agenda items until each proposal has received
the
level
of
public
review
and
independent
evaluation
that
changes
to
our
City
Charter
deserve.
Thank you for your service to Alameda and for considering the views of residents who value transparency,
accountability,
and
thoughtful
governance.
Respectfully,
Carmen Reid
Alameda Resident
From: Steve Slauson
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objection to Regular Agenda Items 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D Date: Sunday, July 5, 2026 4:20:35 PM
Honorable Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Council Members Michele Pryor, Greg Boller, Tony Daysog, Tracy Jensen
I object to the Regular Agenda Items 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D as follows:
Item 7A is a $300 million bond with no information on the projects or needs for the projects explained.
Item 7B bundles numerous City Charter amendments into a single ballot measure preventing thoughtful individual consideration
of individual changes.
Item 7C appears in violation of Alameda’s Measure D
Item 7D proposes eliminating the elected positions of City auditor and City Treasurer, thereby removing independent financial
oversite.
I respectfully request these items be removed from the July 7, 2026 Regular Agenda and be placed on a future Regular Agenda with at least 90
Days allowed for full public review and participation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steve Slauson
2426 Otis Drive
Alameda
From: Dorothy Freeman
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller Cc: Lara Weisiger; Manager Manager
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Agenda July 7, 2026 Item 7D Date: Sunday, July 5, 2026 3:26:50 PM
Alameda City Council Agenda July 7, 2026 Item 7D
July 3, 2026
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor and Council Members Daysog, Boller, and Jensen; I am writing to oppose the proposal to convert the City Auditor and City Treasurer from elected to appointed positions. These roles require a high level of specialized expertise, have a clearly defined scope, and should not be subject to term limits.
Although appointed officials may act with good intentions, they ultimately report to those who appoint them. In contrast, an elected Auditor and Treasurer are accountable solely to the voters. This independence is essential to maintaining strong checks and balances and ensuring public trust in financial reporting and oversight.
Comparisons to governance structures in other Bay Area cities should not determine how Alameda governs itself. Alameda�s system should reflect the needs and values of its own residents.
The cost of maintaining these elected positions is relatively small compared to overall city staffing expenses. Reassigning these responsibilities to existing staff would dilute the importance and effectiveness of the work, while creating a new appointed position would likely increase costs significantly. Presenting the total cost of these roles over a 15-year period is misleading and does not provide a fair comparison; salaries should be evaluated on an annual basis, consistent with how other city positions are presented.
For these reasons, I strongly recommend that the offices of City Treasurer and City Auditor remain elected positions.
Respectfully,
Dorothy Freeman
Cc: City Manager
City Clerk
From: margie
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objections to items on the July 7 agenda Date: Sunday, July 5, 2026 2:55:00 PM
First of all, I object to consideration of major changes when many Alamedans are on vacation.
Specific objections:
I OBJECT to:
Item 7A ( $300 million bond) The bond is for "infrastructure," however, no specific projects are budgeted. The funds could be used for anything. Further, many homeowners in Alameda are seniors on fixed incomes. Additional property tax may be unaffordable.
Item 7B bundles numerous City Charter amendments into a single ballot measure. This approach forces voters into an all-or-nothing decision, preventing thoughtful consideration of individual changes.
Item 7C would make it easier for the City Council to approve the sale or lease of city property by allowing approval via simple majority resolution rather than a super majority ordinance. This change may weaken existing protections, including those established under Measure D.
Item 7D proposes eliminating the elected positions of City Auditor and Treasurer. This proposal, combined with the very vague proposal for a $300 million bond, is very problematic. I am in favor of independent oversight, not dependent on the approval of the Council.
From: Marian Breitbart
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Charter Amendments and Elected Treasurer and Auditor Positions- Council Item 7B and 7D Date: Saturday, July 4, 2026 5:39:52 PM
If the Council approves items 7C and 7D as presented, it will be extremely disappointing.
There does not seem to be a staff report explaining the rationale for these items. Clean up changes to the charter should be voted on separately for each major change.
So far as eliminating the Auditor and Treasurer as elected positions seems to follow the new federal model of minimizing or eliminating any independent oversight of the Council, Finance Director and budget. Is the reason to eliminate the relatively low costs of these positions or because they ask uncomfortable questions. These people were the only ones to identify and push for pension reform…a pressure point for most public entities that have been saved from catastrophe by atypically high investment returns over the past few years..
Please reconsider!
Thank you
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Subject: Item 7-D Re: City Auditor and Treasurer elected positions Date: Thursday, July 2, 2026 11:34:09 AM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, and City Council Members Pryor, Boller, Jensen, and Daysog,
I am writing to oppose the proposal in Agenda 7D as I believe it is a dangerous step backward. It would destroy independent oversight.
It appears the City wants to turn the Auditor and Treasurer into appointed roles. But the Finance Director answers to the City Manager, who answers to you, the Council. We need checks and balances, not financial watchdogs who report to the very people spending the money.
At this moment in history under President Trumps " regime" our federal government is wiping out historical checks and balances and placing power solely in the executive branch. Thank goodness for our system of judicial oversight! Our state governments, courts and city government are also critical in maintaining the checks and balances that preserve democracy in our country.
This amendment would permanently deprives Alameda citizens of their democratic right to directly elect the people who safeguard their tax dollars.
Independent oversight is not administrative red tape—it is the foundation of public trust. I urge the Council to vote NO on placing this measure on the ballot. Let’s keep Alameda’s government transparent, accountable, and independent.
Sincerely,
Patricia Lamborn
Alameda Resident 34 years
From: Roxanne Clement
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Charter Amendment on 7/7/26
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 9:15:47 AM
Mayor Ashcraft & Council Members ;
This proposal is a dangerous step backward for three critical reasons: First, it destroys independent oversight. It appears the City wants to turn these into appointed roles, likely absorbing them under the Finance Director. But the Finance Director answers to the City Manager, who answers to you, the Council. Any suggestion of independence under that structure is a fallacy. We need checks and balances, not financial watchdogs who report to the very people spending the money. Second, it strips power from the voters. This amendment permanently deprives Alameda citizens of their democratic right to directly elect the people who safeguard their tax dollars. Third, it discards vital institutional knowledge which between Auditor Kearney & Treasurer Kennedy, who bring over 60 years of combined experience. At a time when the Alameda government has seen significant turnover, throwing away this deep institutional knowledge harms city stability. Independent oversight is not administrative red tape—it is the foundation of public trust. I urge the Council to vote NO on placing this measure on the ballot. Let’s keep Alameda’s government transparent, accountable, and independent.
Roxanne Clement
124 Cork Rd
Alameda, Ca,
From: Alice Dockter
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please vote “no” on proposal to change auditor and treasurer jobs to appointed positions Date: Sunday, June 28, 2026 6:15:29 PM
After watching two city council members and Rob Bonta pressure an Alameda city manager to hire an under-qualified candidate for fire chief at the bidding of the firefighters' union, I do not trust having the City Auditor and Treasurer appointed rather than elected.
Please vote "no."
Thank you,
Alice Dockter
From: Edward Sing
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Meeting on June 30, 2026 - Item 7D Date: Sunday, June 28, 2026 2:29:18 PM
Mayor Ashcraft & Council Members:
The proposal in Agenda 7D is a dangerous step backward for three critical reasons:
First, it destroys independent oversight. It appears the City wants to turn these into appointed roles, likely absorbing them under the Finance Director. But the Finance Director answers to the City Manager, who answers to you, the Council. Any suggestion of independence under that structure is a fallacy. We need checks and balances, not financial watchdogs who report to the very people spending the money.
Second, it strips power from the voters. This amendment permanently deprives Alameda citizens of their democratic right to directly elect the people who safeguard their tax dollars.
Third, it discards vital institutional knowledge which, between Auditor Kearney & Treasurer Kennedy, bring over 60 years of combined experience. At a time when the Alameda government has seen significant turnover, throwing away this deep institutional knowledge harms city stability.
Independent oversight is not administrative red tape—it is the foundation of public trust.
I urge the Council to vote NO on placing this measure on the ballot. Let’s keep Alameda’s government transparent, accountable, and indep
endent.
Respectfully,
Ed Sing
Alameda Resident for 30 years
From: Karen Miller
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] No on a ballot measure to eliminate the election of Auditor and Treasurer Date: Sunday, June 28, 2026 1:54:50 PM
Dear Mayor and Council members,
The proposal to eliminate the election of the Treasurer and Auditor is a dangerous step backward for three critical reasons: First, it destroys independent oversight. It appears the City wants to turn these into appointed roles, likely absorbing them under the Finance Director. But the Finance Director answers to the City Manager, who answers to you, the Council. Any suggestion of independence under that structure is a fallacy. We need checks and balances, not financial watchdogs who report to the very people spending the money. Second, it strips power from the voters. This amendment permanently deprives Alameda citizens of their democratic right to directly elect the people who safeguard their tax dollars.
Third, it discards vital institutional knowledge
that ,which between Auditor Kearney & Treasurer Kennedy, bring over 60 years of combined experience. At a time when the Alameda government has seen significant turnover, throwing away this deep institutional knowledge harms city stability.
Independent oversight is not administrative red tape—it is the foundation of public trust.
I urge the Council to vote NO on placing this measure on the ballot. Let’s keep Alameda’s government transparent, accountable, and indep endent.
Regards,
Karen Miller
Keith Miller
720 Paru St
Virus-free.www.avast.com
From: Karen Park
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Charter to eliminate the Treasurer and Auditor positions Date: Sunday, June 28, 2026 12:26:19 PM
Mayor Ashcraft & Council Members ;
This proposal is a dangerous step backward for three critical reasons:First, it destroys independent oversight. It appears the City wants to turn these into appointed roles, likely absorbing them under the Finance Director. But the Finance Director answers to the City Manager, who answers to you, the Council. Any suggestion of independence under that structure is a fallacy. We need checks and balances, not financial watchdogs who report to the very people spending the money. Second, it strips power from the voters.
This amendment permanently deprives Alameda citizens of their democratic right to directly elect the people who safeguard their tax dollars.
Third, it discards vital
institutional knowledge which between Auditor Kearney & Treasurer Kennedy, who bring over 60 years of combined experience. At a time when the Alameda government has seen significant turnover, throwing away this deep institutional knowledge harms city stability. Independent oversight is not administrative red tape—it is the foundation of public trust. I urge the Council to vote NO on placing this measure on the ballot. Let’s keep Alameda’s government transparent, accountable, and indep endent.
Yours truly,
Karen Park
9 Coleport Landing
Alameda 94502
From: Cathy Leong
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Greg Boller Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Response in concern over Proposed Charter Amendment on 7/7 City Council Agenda Date: Sunday, June 28, 2026 8:44:05 AM
Mayor Ashcraft & Council Members;
This proposal is a dangerous step backward for three critical reasons:First, it destroys independent oversight. It appears the City wants to turn these into appointed roles, likely absorbing them under the Finance Director. But the Finance Director answers to the City Manager, who answers to you, the Council. Any suggestion of independence under that structure is a fallacy. We need checks and balances, not financial watchdogs who report to the very people spending the money. Second, it strips power from the voters. This amendment permanently deprives Alameda citizens of their democratic right to directly elect the people who safeguard their tax dollars. Third, it discards vital institutional knowledge between Auditor Kearney & Treasurer Kennedy, who bring over 60 years of combined experience. At a time when the Alameda government has seen significant turnover, throwing away this deep institutional knowledge harms city stability. Independent oversight is not administrative red tape—it is the foundation of public trust. I urge the Council to vote NO on placing this measure on the ballot. Let’s keep Alameda’s government transparent, accountable, and independent.
Yours truly, Cathy Leong
From: Pamela Joyce
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Keep City Auditor & City Treasurer elected positions Date: Saturday, June 27, 2026 2:57:10 PM
Mayor Ashcraft & Council Members ;
This proposal is a dangerous step backward for three
critical reasons:
First, it destroys independent oversight.
It appears the City wants to turn these into appointed roles, likely absorbing them under the Finance Director. But the Finance Director answers to the City Manager, who
answers to you, the Council. Any suggestion of
independence under that structure is a fallacy.
We need checks and balances, not financial watchdogs
who report to the very people spending the money.
Second, it strips power from the voters. This amendment permanently deprives Alameda citizens of their democratic right to directly elect the people who safeguard their tax dollars.
Third, it discards vital institutional knowledge which
between Auditor Kearney & Treasurer Kennedy, who
bring over 60 years of combined experience. At a time
when the Alameda government has seen significant
turnover, throwing away this deep institutional knowledge harms city stability. Independent oversight is not
administrative red tape—it is the foundation of public
trust.
I urge the Council to vote NO on placing this measure on the ballot. Let’s keep Alameda’s government transparent, accountable, and independent.
Alameda Citizen & voter since 1981
Pam Joyce
150 Basinside Way, Alameda