Monthly Archives: July 2012

Keeping an oath in San Mateo County

We have many elected officials in our county  that lie under oath, take them and not follow thru with their promises… can we start enforcing the law of oaths and keeping them? Or do we not care about oaths anymore, should we just get rid of them all together?

Here I will start making a scoreboard of who has been lying and breaking oaths.

Leave a comment

Filed under Tax Payer's Advocate

Rescind the Lifetime Award given to Dr. William Ayres

I sent this in support of two victim’s parents who took the time to publicly ask our Supervisors this same request.

Please friends who agree with me please copy this e-mail and send it to your Board of Supervisors. *** ***

FROM:Michael Stogner
TO:Board Supervisors, Marshall Wilson, Michelle Durand, Eslinger Bonnie, Jon Mays, Lisa Ryan

Message flagged Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:53 PM

Dear Board,

This is a formal request that you as the 5 people who are responsible for the oversight of the entire County of San Mateo, rescind the Lifetime Award that was given by the Board of Supervisors in the past. I think the nation is learning a lesson from Penn State, and we SMC can start leading by example. We know that 2 civil suits have been settled and there are several more in our courts as I write this e-mail.

Please do the right thing, Thank You for considering this.


Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

John William Smith Molestation Case is reported at the end.

Almanac Online – Town Square Topic.

Leave a comment

Filed under Victim's Advocate

LAFCo missed opportunity to consolidate and save tax payers $274,000/yr

LAFCo missed opportunity to consolidate and save tax payers $274,000/yr
Around Town, posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:29 pm

LAFCO is responsible for reviewing and approving proposed jurisdictional boundary changes, including annexations and detachments of territory to and/or from cities and special districts, incorporations of new cities, formations of new special districts, and consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions of existing districts. In addition, LAFCO must review and approve contractual service agreements, determine spheres of influence for each city and district, and may initiate proposals involving district consolidation, dissolution, establishment of subsidiary districts, mergers, and reorganizations (combinations of these jurisdictional changes).


With the passage of new legislation in 2000, LAFCOs also were charged with the responsibility to conduct municipal service reviews. A Municipal Service Review (MSR) is a study designed to determine the adequacy of governmental services being provided to the region or sub-region. Developing service reviews for each city and special district within the county may be used by LAFCO, other governmental agencies, and the public to better understand and improve service conditions.

There are so many things wrong with this picture.

1. LAFCo feels dissolution would jeopardize public safety… HOW???, they won’t stop providing the service, the management would be shifted to the County Health Department. It would eliminate and stream line a dysfunctional office. Why wouldn’t you want to replace the 20 members that did not catch the $650,000 dollar fraud?

 2. It is called Mosquito And Vector control district, a special district, not what the local newspapers have been misleading in their title with exchanging wording “Pest Killing Agency”,”Bug District eludes big flyswatter”

3.If the Mosquito and Vector Control district dissolved they have full authority transfer to the county and keep 100% revenue, they only would have to give up their oversight, which they weren’t good at anyway (except Betsy who discovered the fraud) they would have to give up their $25,000 fees or benefits. But it would save the tax payers $254,000 in management positions plus the $25,000 paid yearly to the 21 members of the Board of Trustees. I have an idea.. give Betsy a $25,000 finders fee and get rid of the other 20 members WHO DID NOT SEE FRAUD.

4. 2 Supervisors Adrienne Tissier and Don Horsley ARE LAFCo members and voted “No”, Tissier is concerned that, “the figures may go up if employees receive salaries and benefits from the county” it is hard to tell if her statement is accurate because we do not know what their salaries are now.

5. Should this vote as LAFCo members been an opportunity for the Supervisors to recuse themselves, since they are also where this special District responsibility would have been moved to. Tissier’s public statement was vague and offers no solution.

6. Here are your votes:

YES: Joe Sheridan, Naomi Patridge, Iris Gallagher, Don Horsley, Sepi Richardson, Adrienne Tissier

 NO: Chairwoman Linda Craig

Mosquito is a special district, financed by tax payers of the entire county, and are not a county entity.




So what 7 LAFCo members voted on was to stay private and collect the revenue from the county FOR that special Mosquito district, but has not provided solutions or made ANY changes for improvement. Even the General Manager who hired Joanne (guilty of embezzlement from previous employer) with no background check, is still working in the office.




Linda Craig, chairwoman of LAFCo voted in favor of dissolution, several trustees (who’s vote does not count) suggested they dissolve the district. Martha Poyatos, Executive Director of LAFCo recommended to dissolve the District AND 21 Board of Trustees, but the 7 LAFCo members voted 6-1.




Who is LAFCo representing? They had a chance to save the tax payers, provide smaller government, with GOOD reason and they voted themselves to stay. “No” vote. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

LAFCo missed opportunity to save tax payers $274,000/year

Almanac Online – Town Square Topic.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

John William Smith Molestation Case is reported at the end.

This case was first reported today Monday July 16, 2012 by the Palo Alto Daily Post.

John William Smith age 48 represented by attorney Jeff Carr, He was charged with molesting his niece who was 7 yrs old at the time in 2003. She kept this a secret until 2011 when her mother was dying of cancer and she learned she might have to live with the suspect. As of noon today the jury had testimony read back to them and went back to deliberations.

Why is this the first news of this case, why wasn’t San Mateo County informed of the arrest and the charges?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Carole Groom False Statement about Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Atherton Almanac thread

Supervisor Carole Groom

“I don’t know how many folks in our county know the promise you kept to the Biletnikoff family, after the first case was dismissed or overthrown and you promised that family that you’d come back and re-prosecute and you did, and he was found guilty again and I just think that’s just another example of what your office does.”

I don’t how many folks in our county know (including Supervisor Carole Groom) that Steve Wagstaffe was personally responsible for the murder conviction to be reversed in the first place,  Three Judges from the Ninth District Court ruled his behavior was racially motivated, she doesn’t mention that.

I support San Mateo County re-trying him, he was guilty, I did not support the idea of Mr. Wagstaffe being the prosecutor in the second trial, and I am sorry the Biletnikoff family had to go through another trial.

I think Supervisor Carole Groom’s public description of this event was less than honest.

I sent her and the other Supervisors this e-mail on July 3rd, and to date no response…

Dear Carole,
      I recently saw your public statement to Steve Wagstaffe during a budget hearing on June 21st, 2012. I have to say I was caught completely by surprise at your praise of him keeping a promise to the Biletnikoff family, which was to reprosecute Mr. Ali.  Now, I fully support the second trial and I am pleased with the results, but I did not support Wagstaffe personally prosecuting the case a second time, for this reason. The 9th district court reversed the conviction based on Wagstaffe’s personal behavior.
“The prosecutor’s willingness to make up nonracial reasons for striking [three minority jurors] makes it even harder to believe that his resons for striking [a fourth juror] were race-neutral.”
” We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with directions to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring Ali’s release from custody”
 So, while you are praising a man for keeping a promise he is the sole cause for two trials in SMC. At this time, I am requesting you to find out from the DA’s office, how much did both of those trials cost the tax payer’s of San Mateo County?
 Thank you,
 Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under Board of Supervisors, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate