|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
After being employed in some manner since I was 14 years old – spending 35 years of that time as a journalist, on call basically 24/7 – I am planning a sabbatical.
After the first of the year and a break to move some personal projects forward (and a “news detox” of several weeks), I will return as the president of Embarcadero Media Foundation’s East Bay division and publisher of the Pleasanton Weekly, DanvilleSanRamon.com and LivermoreVine.com.
I will shed my duties as Embarcadero’s Vice President of Sales, which I took on about 16 months ago, and return to the reason I’ve wanted to be a news reporter since I was 5 – a desire to bring accurate, honest information to people through writing and to help raise the money necessary for us to operate successfully as a nonprofit news organization.
Raising awareness of and funds for the East Bay division will be a priority, which I am eager to embark on so the publications I’ve grown to love over the past 18 years stay strong and thrive.
The rather daunting responsibility of procuring funding so we can continue our work is not lost on me. Weekly reader Linda Kelly pointed out something in a recent letter to the editor that struck a nerve because it summed up how important our coverage is.
In regards to our campaign finance reporting, Linda wrote, in part, “We know journalism has changed, not always for the best, and local coverage is diminishing. This thoroughly presented assessment of local campaign finance, for many undecided, perhaps first-time voters, remains the bedrock of unbiased information available to the general public.”
Campaign finance reporting, candidate profiles, moderating candidate forums and the like is extremely important, as is routine coverage of city council and school board meetings and other coverage we provide on a daily basis.
Another very important duty of journalists is to correct factual inaccuracies, give context to potentially misleading statements, and shed light on contradictions, inconsistencies and questionable behaviors.
Public comment during the Oct. 15 Pleasanton City Council meeting provides a plethora of examples to choose from, but I will focus on only one speaker.
Matthew Gray, a City of Pleasanton employee in the Parks Division and co-chair of the committee Protect Pleasanton’s Future: Supporting Measure PP, came up to the mic to “support Mayor Brown and encourage others to vote yes on Measure PP.”
Instead of addressing talking points on why voters should support Measure PP, though, Gray launched into an ad hominem attack on the No on PP organizers, omitting key facts and context.
Gray said “certain vocal individuals that are here in the room tonight are leaders against Measure PP. They are the very same individuals who were against the city council adopting a formal code of conduct last year.”
Yes, many people were opposed to making the “code of conduct” that Mayor Karla Brown and Councilmembers Julie Testa and Valerie Arkin were trying to make “official” because it was a ploy to silence Councilmember Jack Balch, who was voicing his opposition to decisions being made by Brown, Arkin and Testa, such as voting to:
- Raid the rainy day fund, against advice of staff and two fellow council members, of $1 million in June 2022 to fund an expanded skatepark and improvements to historic Century House.
- Scrap the Lions Wayside Park renovation project (which was in the works for 20 years and would benefit thousands in Pleasanton and the Tri-Valley) without having all the information – like actual cost estimates, which would have been key in making that decision.
- And defund the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce-led Leadership Pleasanton program citing cost, while continuing to push the skate park and Century House renovations and eventually forcing city staff to spend time and resources to create its own, similar program.
For the co-chair of a group that is trying to sell how transparent it is, Gray’s next statement actually left me more stunned than lack of context and facts about the “code of conduct.”
Speaking about the same group of residents, Gray said, “They’re the very same individuals who bombard the city clerk’s office with PRAs (public records act requests) which cost the city thousands upon thousands of dollars to fulfill.”
How dare citizens ask for transparency and the ability to access information!
Gray followed his reprimand for submitting records requests by saying the opposition is “steering a narrative on social media, the goal of which is to undermine trust in the city council, city management staff, and our current mayor…”
I’ve attended or watched recordings of hundreds of public meetings, but I have never witnessed a city employee gushing over an elected official and berating people who disagree with him during public comment of a city council meeting. It was absolutely cringe-worthy.
I understand anyone, regardless of employment status or employer, residency in a certain city or views and beliefs, can have their three minutes at the mic, but just because they can doesn’t mean they should.
If Gray’s supervisor and / or the Measure PP supporters knew what he planned to say, they should have thought it through a bit longer. It was embarrassing and should raise eyebrows and the ire of citizens.
From what I’ve seen, the Yes on PP leaders are doing more to undermine trust of city staff and council by vilifying those who don’t agree with them, criticizing people for exercising their rights as citizens and being less than transparent about their campaign finance reporting.
“Protect Pleasanton’s Future: Yes on PP” campaign received $5,000 from the Livermore-Pleasanton Firefighters Local 1974 Political Action Fund Issues on Oct. 8. They have now missed filing two forms on time – the form that acknowledges contributions of more than $1,000 within 24 hours of receipt and a form for contributions received between Sept. 22 and Oct. 19.
As of 8 a.m., Oct. 30, nothing had been filed. (See editor’s note.)
Another curious issue is that the Yes on PP FPPC number, which is listed on the group’s website, a mailer and yard signs, cannot be found on the City of Pleasanton’s campaign finance portal.
But why are we even debating the issue of a sales tax increase ballot measure?
I am perplexed why the council majority, while claiming the city is facing a “budget crisis,” voted to put Measure PP on the ballot regardless of what the consultants they paid over $260,000 told them about the chances of it passing.
FM3 Research was hired to poll likely Pleasanton voters on whether they would support a ½-cent sales tax increase. In June, council members were told a sales tax measure “may be viable for the November 2024 election with a strong campaign in favor and no organized opposition.”
The proponents eventually formed a group led by two city employees and a handful of residents, but the No on PP committee was in place before the ink was dry on the city’s press release.
The measure had a slim chance of passing in the beginning, so it seems like a waste of time and money to me.
Based on the Yes on PP group chairperson’s choice to falsely imply wrongdoing by people who disagree with him rather than talk about reasons to vote yes and try to build trust with the public, it seems the Yes on PP folks are getting nervous.
I’m a big believer in the importance of fact-based and explanatory journalism, whether in reporting or opinion, and will embrace my development role and writing responsibilities when I return next year. The Tri-Valley needs and deserves a strong local press.
A year-end fundraising campaign is in the works, though, and I hope you will join me and others who care about a strong local press by making a donation before Dec. 31.
Editor’s notes: Information that the Protect Pleasanton’s Future: Yes on PP had filed necessary FPPC reports on Oct. 28 was removed because it was incorrect.
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated the city’s expenditure related to sales tax measure polling and related consultant services in 2023 and 2024. The city of Pleasanton paid consultant firm Clifford Moss $260,058 under a contract that had a maximum/”not to exceed” amount of $380,000.
Gina Channell Wilcox has been the president and publisher of Embarcadero Media’s East Bay Division since 2006.
More than fair: Pleasanton 'grounds generate $312 million in annual economic impactMarch 12, 2026 4:17 pm
Thank you Gina for your commitment to the truth!
You write:
“They have now missed filing two forms on time – the form that acknowledges contributions of more than $1,000 within 24 hours of receipt and a form for contributions received between Sept. 22 and Oct. 19. As of 6 p.m. Oct. 28, nothing had been filed. (The group did file later that evening, though.)”
I can find no campaign finance reports filed by the Yes on PP campaign except their initial organization report. What and where is the report they filed on Oct 28? California law requires a committee to disclose their contributions received and expenditures made when they raise or spend $2000+. They have produced a mail piece and yard signs and appear to have hired a treasurer which should have taken them over the total.
By my count, they may have missed FOUR campaign finance reports:
1. Form 410 amendment when they hit the $2000 threshold
2. 1st Pre-Election Report due 9/28/2024 for activity through 9/21/2024
3. Form 497 24 hour report for contribution received of $1000+
4. 2nd Pre-Election Report due 10/24/2024 for activity through 10/19/2024.
And there is another report due November 1. Campaign finance statements are to ensure transparency and fairness in elections. The documents are there to ensure voters are fully informed. The voters have a right to know who is funding the measures.
Thank you so much for this piece. You are doing us all a great service with articles like this. Looking forward to more.