This ie excellent news for the City of Pleasanton! LAFCO is key to Staples Ranch annexation, and now we have a seat at the table.

None of this has any value if Hosterman continues to not attend the meetings and piss off others on the committees.
In the past it has appeared that these appointments have only been about her ego.

Way to bring in the New Year with a positive attitude Bob :-) I think its fair to say that Jennifer has learned lesson's and grown as time has moved on. I think she will do an excellent job in her appointment.

This is typical. Someone hears some spin and it doesn't matter if it was debunked or not, it gets repeated anyway. With an alternate seat, one doesn't attend every meeting. DUH?

From Web Link

"The issue of why Pleasanton does not have a seat on LAFCO was raised. LAFCO is the agency that determines sphere of influence and annexations in the county. Hosterman said only two cities in Alameda County have representation. They are highly coveted spots. "I believe that when Mayor Lockhart retires, I may well be taking her seat," said Hosterman. Brozosky said that the city did have an alternate seat on LAFCO 2006-2007, held by the mayor. He didn't know why it was taken it away. "I read that it was because of a lack of attendance." Hosterman replied that as an alternate she had attended every meeting that she was asked to attend."

You know, the PW appears just as guilty here in spreading bunk. In this story Web Link Bing writes that Hosterman was booted off of LAFCO due to attendance.

"Hosterman was booted off the board after she missed numerous meetings while preparing for state bar exams. That leaves Pleasanton without any representation at LAFCo."

How can we verify this? The PW and Brozosky appear in a Google search to be the only ones claiming this. Moreover, since Hosterman was an alternate (she never had a regular seat on LAFCO), how could it be said that Pleasanton lost representation? I suspect that Bing is just repeating what he heard.

Stacey-while the PW tends to spread "bunk" like peanut butter due to their lazy fact checking, this one may not be as unreliable as you think.
Mayor Hosterman did have a dismal record of attending all those committees she put herself on way back when. I'm sure you could confirm that with Cindy McGovern, Matt Sullivan and Steve Brozosky whom she asked to cover for her on so many occasions (and when she didn't ask, the meetings went unattended, which did indeed earn the ire of her fellow tri-valley mayors who returned the favor by not endorsing her re-election campaign two years ago).

But, do what you always do dear apologist Stacey, blindly disregard any negative Hosterman remarks and blame the other guy instead.

As usual Stacey is defending Hosterman. The facts are very well known, as stated by more than one person. Hosterman does only what she thinks will get her something. In this case she blew off the meetings and they retaliated, no big surprise. Perhaps if she had passed the bar on one of her five(?) attempts she could devote time to representing this city as the voters should expect.

If the facts are so well known, where are they? More than one person stated them? Who were these people? Anecdotes from local politicians are not facts. How about citing some independent sources? Normally one would rely upon the newspapers for this function, but it doesn't look like the PW did their research properly on this one. Searching for "hosterman LAFCO" doesn't produce any results on the Valley Times website. Anyone?

How did we go from "Hosterman didn't attend LAFCO meetings" to "Hosterman didn't attend those committees she put herself on"? The claim was about LAFCO. Search Google for "brozosky OR mcgovern OR sullivan site:acgov.org/lafco" and you'll find no matches for those names in LAFCO meeting minutes so how could they have attended a LAFCO meeting in Hosterman's place? Or is voter talking about council committees/other regional committees? How are those relevant to the claim of Hosterman getting booted off of LAFCO because of poor attendance?

Feel free to call me an apologist for Hosterman. I'm interested in having a healthy respect for facts instead of buying the snake oil.

BTW, from what I've been able to find, the selection process for the two city commissioner seats and city alternate on LAFCO is done by the Alameda County Mayor's Conference. Now if one could find if this mayor's conference has online meeting minutes, it should say in those meeting minutes about why Tony Santos from San Leandro was appointed city alternate after Hosterman and no one has to rely upon hearsay.

Just to summarize, here are the facts I found while trying to verify the claim that Hosterman lost a seat on LAFCO due to poor attendance by using information freely available on the Internet.

1) There are two regular "City" seats on LAFCO and one alternate. (found in California code section 56325)
2) These seats are appointed by the Alameda County Conference of Mayors (found mention of this in LAFCO meeting minutes)
3) Alternates do not get a vote unless a regular commissioner is absent or has excused self from a vote. (California code and LAFCO's policies document)
4) From the meeting minutes available on AC LAFCO's website, Hosterman attended all meeting where a regular "City" commissioner was absent. She didn't attend meetings when she wasn't needed as fill in except for the first annual LAFCO meeting in July.
5) The alternates for County and Special Districts almost always attended. The Public alternate rarely attended. (meeting minutes)
6) The California code mentions nothing about required attendance levels for alternates at LAFCO meetings.

As the LAFCO meeting minutes show, Hosterman never had a regular seat. She was an "alternate" that attended when a regular commissioner was absent and only then could she vote. Therefore, Hosterman could never have really represented Pleasanton on LAFCO to begin with (a PW article claims Pleasanton lost representation). As for why Tony Santos of San Leandro was appointed to replace Hosterman as city alternate, the only clue in meeting minutes is where it says the AC Mayors' Conference selected Tony Santos. It doesn't say why. I believe therefore the answer can only be found in meeting minutes for the AC Mayors' Conference, but there appears to be no public website for them. It looks like they are a non-profit organization, not a public entity. Compare with the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference, which has a website with their minutes available. This seems like some sort of wrong...

Hosterman's attendance record at these LAFCO meetings is available for all to see. It seems perhaps, as per what Bunkie said, that Hosterman's attendance at OTHER regional committee meetings was poor and this somehow affected her LAFCO position. If this were the case, it sounds like Hosterman got booted off of LAFCO for purely political reasons and certainly is not the same as claiming that poor attendance at LAFCO was the reason. Perhaps the PW statement should have been "Hosterman was booted off the board after she missed numerous meetings for other committees while preparing for state bar exams."

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?