The abbreviated version of the letter published does not explain that Councilmember Kasperzak walked away from actually voting on the item at the January 26 City Council meeting - citing his conflict of interest. But prior city emails reveal that Mr. Kasperzak had already participated in the "decision making process" in the many months before the Council vote. Once staff members at the City of Mountain View, the City of Los Altos and a county agency called LAFCO had been lobbied and had agreed to not oppose detachment by Mountain View and annexation by Los Altos, and after the property owners had privately met with all seven members of the Mountain View City Council behind the scenes, the January 26 vote was virtually a formality. It should also be noted that- to his credit - one Councilmember (Ken Rosenberg) did publicly acknowledge on January 26 that he had met with the applicants, and Councilmember Rosenberg voted against detachment. The city emails also reveal that one of the property owners on Jardin Drive had been an employee of the City of Mountain View (part-time since 2009) and is listed as an endorser of Mr. Kasperzak on his last City Council campaign website and his current state Assembly campaign website.

Don't think that the big money lobbies only work in Washington D.C.
This stinks.

Yes. City Councilmembers may and do meet privately with applicants and other special interests. The only restrictions on meeting in the law arise when a local legislator has a conflict of interest (such as a personal and distinct finanial interest) or when the meeting includes a majority of the local legislative body. There is a prohibition in a state law called the Ralph M. Brown Act against a majority "meeting" privately on an issue through an intermediary - such as an applicant. But this type of serial meeting occurs when a position (planned vote) is communicated to other local legislators directly or through the intermediary. In this instance, the City of Mountain View did not produce emails showing that approval of detachment was a "done deal" with at least four votes assured, and I do not claim it was fully a "done deal." I am (mainly) pointing out that the decision-making process began (and typically begins) well before the City Council meeting, and Assembly candidate Michael Kasperzak should have butt out long ago because he had a personal financial stake owning a house so close to the properties at issue.