Someone with this temperament should not represent the city

Mayor Jennifer Hosterman has demonstrated on a few public occasions that she can be nettled. None of her past transgressions, however, has risen to the level of her recent official correspondences with Dan Carl and Michael Maslana, and Stephen Page (see below.)

The e-mail is from the City of Pleasanton and is a part of the public record. We have chosen to run this e-mail as it was presented to us by the city staff to illustrate, in context, how Ms. Hosterman’s written responses to constituent mail is over the line. This alone should disqualify her from being re-elected.

Certainly, we are disappointed that the mayor has used city e-mail to solicit campaign donations and to trash her opponent. However, it is really her temperament and language that bothers us.

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Hosterman
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 10:51 PM
To: 'Dan Carl'; Michael Roush
Cc: Nelson Fialho; Mayor and City Council; Mary Lu Campbell
Subject: RE: Mayor Hosterman's Form 700 and Real+Business Interest at 555 Peters Avenue REPLY

Dear Carl,

This route is a dead end.

Take up your contentions with the FPPC - I'll not ask, nor allow my staff to respond to your stupid and unfounded requests.

See you in Court?

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Carl [mailto:dacarl11@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:25 PM
To: Jennifer Hosterman; Michael Roush
Cc: Nelson Fialho; Mayor and City Council; Mary Lu Campbell
Subject: RE: Mayor Hosterman's Form 700 and Real+Business Interest at 555 Peters Avenue REPLY

Dear Jennifer:

I have been in touch with the FPPC and this is the route they indicated I should take regarding my concerns. The FPPC provided the relevant regulations for review. The City Attorney needs to address this issue. The FPPC will not act upon an individual's request, but they will help Michael through the listed regulations and the Statute to see if it applies in your case. The City can then decide what action needs to be taken. I am surprised that you do not want the City Attorney to look into this and resolve the issue if you do not feel there is a problem. Instructing the City Attorney to not spend any time in this, as you did, could be interpreted as a cover up.

This is an issue of whether FPPC guidelines are being followed or not. It is my understanding from the FPPC and CA State Statutes that I am within my rights as a citizen of Pleasanton to make this request. I do not make this request lightly, and have provided information and data that I believe at least deserve review. It was not my intent to make a public investigation out of this (something I thought you would appreciate). As you have copied the staff and the Council in response - apparently you feel otherwise, vis a vis the Brown Act.

It is also my understanding that the City Attorney and City Staff work for the citizens of the city and the collective City Council - not at the whim of the Mayor. A valid Material or Real interest conflict request should be reviewed. If there is no conflict, then I apologize for any lost time in advance. If there is a conflict, you should recuse yourself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety - and should have been doing so during your entire tenure on the Council. That is why the Political Reform Act was passed- to insure Fair Practices and that no sitting public official would benefit financially from decisions they voted upon. (Even though Tom Pico didn't like having to recuse himself from Downtown votes, he did so. I greatly respected his integrity for following FPPC and State Statue guidelines.)

I copied you as a courtesy to you and your office and to be above board in this request. In our "Community of Character," I didn't expect name calling in response, nor an invitation to sue. Filing suit is non sequitur.

Best Regards -

Dan Carl

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jennifer Hosterman [mailto:JHosterman@ci.pleasanton.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 11:26 PM
To: Dan Carl; Michael Roush
Cc: mlcampbell@ci.pleasanton.ca.us, jthorne@ci.pleasanton.ca.us, msullivan@ci.pleasanton.ca.us, cmcgovern@ci.pleasanton.ca.us, sbrozosky@ci.pleasanton.ca.us; Nelson Fialho
Subject: RE: Mayor Hosterman's Form 700 and Real+Business Interest at 555 Peters Avenue

Dear Dan,

I'm going to request that you direct your concerns about my past, present, and future candidacies for public office to the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission . I'm going to ask Mr. Roush to not respond, as I don't want my staff spending time answering your stupid questions on taxpayer dollars. And, if you are not satisfied with the response from the FPPC, I suggest you sue me.

I look forward to service of process.

Jennifer

post script to staff - please do not respond to this stupid request.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Carl [mailto:dacarl11@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 6:26 PM
To: Michael Roush
Cc: Jennifer Hosterman
Subject: Mayor Hosterman's Form 700 and Real+Business Interest at 555 Peters Avenue

Dear Michael,

The Mayor recently filed an amended form 700 (PDF attached), indicating that she is "Owner" of a law practice at 555 Peters Avenue . From her previous campaign literature and ballot statements, it appears that she has been an owner of this practice for some time. It is my understanding that the office is leased and within 500 feet of downtown.

My concerns and questions:

FPPC Regulations 18703.1, 18703.2, 18704.1 and 18705.1 along with State Statute 82033 of the Political Reform Act indicate that such material ownership of a business and leaseholds constitute a real interest in the property as well as a material business interest at that location. As such, should the Mayor recuse herself from all future votes concerning the downtown corridor (e.g., General Plan updates, etc.)? Having worked with Tom Pico in past, I watched him recuse himself from such votes due to his interest in his Railroad Avenue office (now home). I would assume that Ms. Hosterman needs to do the same from the above mentioned regulations and statutes.
Does the Mayor need to file amended form 700s for all prior periods for her time on the council - as her ownership in the business and material interest in the real estate via leasehold appears to be for more than the most recent period?
If the answer to the question above is "yes" are there city votes that need to be reviewed or revisited due to the lack of the Mayor recusing herself in situations where the FPPC indicates (in my non-legal opinion) she should not have voted?

Thank you for your attention in this matter. If you would like to meet to discuss this, or prefer a telecon, I can be reached at 925-353-0134. I understand that General Plan issues will soon be in front of the Council again.

Best Regards - Dan Carl

---

From: "Jennifer Hosterman" <JHosterman@ci.pleasanton.ca.us>
Date: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:22:24 PM US/Pacific
To: "Stephen Page" <ichannel@comcast.net>, "Jim Wolfe"
JWolfe@ci.pleasanton.ca.us>
Cc: "Nelson Fialho" <NFialho@ci.pleasanton.ca.us>, "Mark Spiller"
MSpiller@ci.pleasanton.ca.us>, "Delcea Wills"
DWills@ci.pleasanton.ca.us>, "Craig Higgins"
CHiggins@ci.pleasanton.ca.us>, "Frances Steuer-Silva"
FSteuerSilva@ci.pleasanton.ca.us>
Subject: RE: More detail...Re: Rethinking the closing of the Aquatic Center on Aug. 25

Dear Mr. Page,

Your statements and assumptions are over the top and out of control.

My three daughters have worked for the City as lifeguards collectively, for many, many years, as have many of their friends. If you think
the City is somehow involved in poor planning or poor management, perhaps you'd like to make an application to a management position.
In the meantime, its one thing to offer one's opinions regarding services, but to infer that one has the knowledge base to make wild
assumptions followed by even more wild accusations, is quite absurd.

I'm going to ask my staff to cease answering your rabid e-mails. You are welcome to make application to any position within the City to which
you think you would excel, and you are equally welcome to move.

I hope you'll pick the former, but the latter would be acceptable.

Jennifer

..........................................
Jennifer Hosterman
Mayor
City of Pleasanton

---

From: Jennifer Hosterman [mailto:JHosterman@ci.pleasanton.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:58 PM
To: Michael Maslana
Cc: Michael Roush
Subject: RE: Concerns of Mike Maslana

Okay, Michael, this is the last time I'm going to address you on this issue. You've gone way too far. it is clear to me in prior correspondence that my City staff

has more than adequately addressed your concerns. But, to no avail. If you want, sue the City. Otherwise, I invite you to have a life, and get over what you perceiveto be imperfections in how applicants are treated. But, if you continue to have a problem with what you view as unfair treatment, hire a lawyer and sue the City.

I'm going to ask my City staff to cease spending any more time on this issue. Really, it's going no where.

I hope you agree, and of course, if you don't, as I said, hire counsel to pursue a claim against whomever you want to name as a defendant, and we'll see howthis turns out. Really, Michael, I'm done with your frivolous claims.

Jennifer

.................................................................

Jennifer Hosterman
Mayor
City of Pleasanton

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Maslana [mailto:mikem@compserv-inc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:58 PM
To: Michael Roush; Cindy McGovern; Jennifer Hosterman; Jerry Thorne; Matt Sullivan; Steve Brozosky; Nelson Fialho; Jerry Iserson; Rob Wilson; George Thomas
Cc: mikem@compserv-inc.com
Subject: Concerns of Mike Maslana

Mr. Roush/All:

Please see my additions/clarifications/questions imbedded in the attached document.

With all due respect, please allow me to put my concerns into my own words. As with my property, a complaint was received as to the use(s) of the Pico's property. Despite this long string of e-mails received, to date has Pleasanton C.O.E. visited the Pico's property?

I have corresponded with several council members expressing my motive. For the record it is not borne of any personal animosity toward the Pico's, who I do not know. Nor do I have designs to revisit my case by suing the city. I simply want the city to treat all applicants the same.

Other concerns/problems not addressed in Mr. Roush's letter:

Apartments: I was told that the elderly woman who owned the home previously rented out the upstairs rooms. This may be, though no one has produced a written record of this. Furthermore, the Pico's have converted these by installing appliances and amenities of commercially rentable units; stove, oven, refrigerator, washer & dryer, bathrooms, etc. These did not previously exist. Why therefore doesn't both ADA and fire apply?

Parking: The Pico property as with those on the southerly side of Spring Street, have space for on-site parking. Why with downtown parking being so scarce were the Pico's, at a minimum, required to pave their backyard to provide as many parking spaces as possible?

I am not, as counselor seems to imply, a person of inferior intellect; to wit, despite our best efforts, Mr. Maslana just doesn't "get it." I am a tax paying citizen of Pleasanton , no less or more the equal of anyone "downtown." I am prepared to bring forth my neighbors to share and place their experiences into the record.

Mike Maslana

News Opinion

 

Global warming, war, nonproliferation stall General Plan

A recent Pleasanton Weekly editorial suggested that General Plan debates should be held off until the November 7 municipal election.

Normally we would disagree with this position. Pleasanton is a couple of years (and some big bucks) behind schedule on the General Plan update and combatants on the council should be adult enough to complete the process without mixing in election-year politics. Then we remembered that this City Council is a dysfunctional family.

The Weekly concluded in its editorial that after the election “it’s likely that a newly-constituted City Council can get back to the business of finishing this important work.” While we doubt that too, at least the lines for the next two years will be drawn. The environmental extremists will want to account for every tree and frog and the middle-of-the-roaders will want to do the important required updates and leave the energy and water conservation “elements” out of the plan until they are required by the Center for Biological Diversity or the Greenbelt Alliance.

Is the City Council the right venue to discuss the War on Terrorism?

Is the City Council the right venue for War on Terrorism discussions? Maybe, as long as the mayor and her friend Fred Norman are willing to discuss what is to be done with the Earth First group that terrorizes lumberjacks by spiking trees marked for harvesting, that terrorizes National Forest lodges accommodating skiers and snowmobilers, and terrorizes by destroying vehicles—SUVs--of automobile dealers thought to be politically incorrect.

On second thought, no, the City Council is not the right venue. Those protesting the war and undermining the war effort can always go to Congressman Richard Pombo’s field offices and join up with the kooks who think Mr. Pombo is worse than Hugo Chavez and Mookmad Iamadinnerplate who sponsors terrorists. For that matter, a quick BART trip to San Francisco will get them in front of the two California Senators who can actually do something about terrorism other than voting for it before voting against it.

Workforce housing

Who said that teachers, public safety workers, and City Hall bureaucrats who earn a pretty decent wage are entitled to subsidized housing or mortgages? In fact in Pleasanton with the highest median income for cities of its size who says we should subsidize anyone’s housing? Workforce housing is the socialist way of redistributing the wealth and they get to decide who gets what. It was only a couple of years ago that we were discussing housing costs in terms of single, working mothers and seniors. And surely in wealthy Pleasanton those two categories are the only ones worth considering for subsidies. So hold onto you wallets whenever you hear the phrase workforce housing—that is just politicians and bureaucrats taking your money and giving it to someone else who, in Pleasanton, likely makes as much or more than you do.

Memorandum of Understanding is positively Clintonian

We wish that Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty had played hardball with the City of Pleasanton regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with Alameda County over the proposed Staples Ranch development and the approved Stoneridge Drive extension.

We now know why Supervisor Haggerty caved. He is backing mayoral candidate Steve Brozosky and Mr. Brozosky, who pushed the compromise, is opposed to the Stoneridge Drive extension that has been for many years approved to travel through that property to join with El Charro Road. The compromise hashed out by Mr. Haggerty does little for the county save make the property salable. Mr. Brozosky wins several ways. He can boast that he has kept the Hendrick Automotive Group and its $1 million in sales tax revenue in Pleasanton and did not have to give up the Stoneridge Drive extension to do it. Mr. Haggerty it seems has enough political cover just by having the extension remain a part of the Staples Ranch development for future need. While Mr. Haggerty may have to answer to a large part of his constituency in Livermore, he will probably face the music a long time down the road when memories are not as fresh. Livermore and Dublin are on record supporting the extension of Stoneridge Drive.

The emergency road where the extension would go satisfies both Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Brozosky who can claim that the compromise is good for the Tri-Valley because it satisfies the need for emergency evacuation routes.

So, you ask, who are the winners and the losers. Of course, Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Brozosky are the winners. Environmental extremists also win. Stoneridge Drive will not be built for many years if ever. The whiny victims in the Mohr Martin neighborhood also win. They get to keep their exclusive status at the expense of the rest of the neighborhoods.

The losers are the residents of Pleasanton. Traffic will not improve and will in fact continue to deteriorate without the extension. The cities of Livermore and Dublin also lose because their planning includes the Stoneridge Drive extension to help with traffic flow in the region. Residents along Vineyard Avenue, Stanley Boulevard, Valley Avenue, and Santa Rita Road also lose. Their rides home will be just a little longer thanks to the selfishness of a few and the political pandering of fewer yet.

Tim’s say goodbye

Pleasanton Police Chief Tim Neal has called it a career. Things are running pretty well at the police department so the chief leaves with a great record. We hope that his replacement will have the same no-nonsense attitude about snuffing out crime. We have enough cops on the streets—Stoneridge Mall and BART—and that the criminals think twice about plying their trades here.

Tim Hunt resigned as the associate publisher at the Tri-Valley Herald. While we often took him to task on his newspaper’s coverage of Pleasanton, we applauded his Sunday column taking the oh, so serious politicos to task. We are pleased that Mr. Hunt will continue to write his columns.

Guest Opinion

 

Laura Danielson not roundabout about Opinion Pleasanton getting cozy with Paulette Kenyon

I enjoy on occasion popping in to read your "news" and editorial opinions. There's usually a good laugh or two to be had.

I wasn't laughing quite so heartily this time however when I read your assessment of Paulette Kenyon's l.t.t.e. [letter to the editor] regarding the Vineyard Ave. roundabout removal. In particular, the argument that the circles "haven't been given a chance" isn't very hilarious when you've had to drive them for longer than a year.

Given them a chance to do what? The city's own traffic report showed the only benefit they had was slowing traffic-except that the "slowing" was only happening in the roughly 200 feet between themselves. What good did that do in front of a barren elementary school property? Were repeated accidents and car damages worth that? (PUSD never endorsed or asked for them either, by the way).

Those of us who had to use them to get our kids to school everyday-or had newish drivers getting themselves to school-were scared silly. As a matter of fact, many of us still tense up when we approach the old areas-even though they've been removed.

Also, Ruby Hill residents never "snapped their fingers" to have them removed. Many of us attended numerous c.c. [City Council] meetings and sent multiple e-mails to lobby for our safety. Thankfully, three council members (who had driven them agreed-Jerry Thorne going so far as to state they were perhaps a good idea but just a bad execution-or something like that) agreed. Also, R. H. HOA opposed them when ASKED (by the city) for an opinion 5 years ago.

I know it's tempting to poke fun at rich folks, but in "my" opinion it is a parent's responsibility to speak up when they feel their family is in jeopardy, no matter what their income bracket is.

Thanks,

Laura Danielson

PS I, to my knowledge, have NEVER run over a squirrel!

The Grand Kenyon writes again

On September 21, 2006 in the Tri-Valley Herald Paulette Kenyon writes one of her most inelegant rants against President Bush in a letter that was designed to demonstrate that we are either safer or not after 911.
Even when she has a rational thought she ruins it for the reader when she states that Mr. Bush “…had his operatives rig both elections and is trashing the Constitution. We will be safe when he is removed and placed on trial for his crimes.”

Ms. Kenyon later wrote a letter in the Tri Valley Herald supporting our globetrotting mayor. Ms. Kenyon is delusional if she thinks that Mayor Jennifer Hosterman traveled this summer to “inform herself about national issues affecting Pleasanton.” She went to pontificate and to hear herself talk.

And, as far as Ms. Hosterman’s being “a sharp cookie”, we could not agree more. She is on the make for higher office and her claptrap about the war and global warming will sell to the uneducated with d’s after their names.

Herbert Marshall lays out a strong case for the Stoneridge extension

In a letter to the Tri-Valley Herald on September 21, 2006, Herbert Marshall advises that people near where Stoneridge Drive should extend to El Charro Road should look at what is beneficial to the entire city and their blocking this planned growth for our city “only aggravates the congestion on our streets and roads.”

Mr. Marshall is correct. Today’s traffic backs up on the freeways as well as city streets such as Valley Avenue, Stanley Boulevard, and Santa Rita Road.

The Stoneridge Drive extension issue is especially disheartening when the city’s own traffic models show traffic improvements when Stoneridge Drive is added to the road network.

 

 

-30-