Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Jan 26, 2008
The origin of Mayor's Hosterman's hawk complaint have beeen political and perhaps not nice but the way that Hosterman responded to it is the bottom line. A public figure knows her actions come under greater scrutiny, this is a condition a person in public office must be prepared to accept. While it may not have come to the City's attention if it had it been in anyone else's backyard, keeping a hawk is not allowed in Pleasanton. Hosterman should have shown more respect for her office and not dragged the City Staff, Planning Commission, and fellow Council members into the difficult position she put them in. As Mayor of Pleasanton she should be held to a higher standard, pointing blame at the complainant and saying "he started it" is beneath her position and childish. Hosterman should have asked one of her fellow non-Pleasanton hawk handlers to care for the bird until it was ready for release, then pursued the process for changing the ordinance as any other citizen would have been asked to do. The time spent by city staff and the City Council as well as the regional embarrassment is the fault of Hosterman. Far worse is the ugly position that she put Pleasanton city staff and her council in. There is no question the outcome to allow her to keep the bird was favoritism. Justifying it because of the political origin does not excuse the "I am above the law" arrogance demonstrated by Hosterman and three council members that voted to give her an exception. I feel shame for my city and concern that my elected officials do not hold themselves to a higher standard.
Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.
If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.