Following Glenn Tanner’s loss during the Measure E Parcel Tax election in 2018, there have been incoming inquiries regarding his political history. Questions generally involve whether or not Glenn Tanner is qualified, both from the standpoints of experience and character, to assume a leadership position of any kind in the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Though our investigation continues, the initial conclusion drawn is that Glenn Tanner is poorly suited for any political position. As the investigation continues, those with information are encouraged to E-mail email@example.com.
Thus far into our investigation, we have learned of a relatively consistent, and somewhat sad story of a Palos Verdes Estates resident and how he has endured a life of losing (politically). His first apparent political setback was a devastating defeat in the Torrance 2000 City Council election (where his ~ 7,200 vote total was merely around half of the top winner, current Assembly challenger Frank Scotto). In 2015, Glenn Tanner lost again – rejected by Palos Verdes Estates city offiicals in his bid to fill an open city council position (click here). Three years later, Tanner suffered defeat again as the co-head of failed PVE Measure opposition vehicle “PVE-Smart” (see below). Finally, Glenn Tanner’s apparent recognition of being ill-fitted to represent fellow citizens within the confines of a cooperative political body seems to have caused him to drop out of any effort to run for PVE City Council in 2019. However, despite seemingly low odds of victory, reports have surfaced that Mr. Tanner may change his mind or run at a later date.
We do not think it is fair to say that the lawsuit filed against him by Cynthia Ahearn (2006) or having his account suspended on Nextdoor.com (2018) have played a major role in his unfortunate political history. Nor do we believe it true that his failings relate or are reflected by reports of his wife Lisa Tanner playing a disproportionate role in running their little enterprise MEP (Maximum Energy Professionals, or Marketable Engineered Products, depending on the year in operation).
How Glenn Tanner Cost the anti-tax Side
the Measure E Parcel Tax Election
Introduction: The manner in which Glenn Tanner operated during the 2018 PVE Measure E parcel tax election seems to exhibit precisely why many have concluded to vote in opposition against his quest for political office. Moreover, Glenn Tanner (and associates) reportedly determined to propagate falsehoods in an attempt to deflect his dominant role in the failure to defeat the $45 million Measure E Parcel Tax. This section’s goals are to set the record straight and provide a detailed look into Glenn Tanner’s character.
Background: In December 2017, Glenn Tanner graciously was included in a small group meeting in a private home to discuss strategy for educating PVE voters of the prudence in voting down a prospective $45,000,000 parcel tax (Measure E). Also in attendance were four members of the Bluff Cove Homeowners Association (BCHA; http://www.bluffcove.org), including its President, Treasurer and Asst. Treasurer. Measure E was the successor to Measure D, which in March 2017 received only 60% of the vote and thus failed to achieve the 2/3 required for special purpose (non-general) parcel taxes in California. At this meeting, Glenn Tanner reportedly struggled to conceive, much less contribute, much to the meeting beyond his vitriol for the PVE City Council and then-PVEPD Captain Mark Velez (now Chief of Police). Tanner appeared to despise and resent the City Council for reportedly rejecting his effort to be selected for that governmental body in 2015 when three seats were open (went to Vandever, King and Lin-Peterson). He voiced disdain for PVEPD Captain Mark Velez for what Tanner described as Velez’s alleged abuse of Tanner’s son. Glenn’s wife Lisa Tanner, though sadly exhibiting a duplicitous and disingenuous character subsequently, did contribute the idea of marketing the Sheriff located in Malaga Cove as “PVE’s own special Sheriff dept.” However, she inexplicably determined later to minimize, if not outright abandon open, public support for the Sheriff in favor of a confusing pro-PVEPD/anti-tax message (see below).
BCHA’s Pro-Sheriff/Anti-Tax Message: The BCHA recognized immediately that very few people are willing to sacrifice personal safety/security for a City’s fiscal soundness, especially when the cost of the former amounts on average to only $800/year. The morally questionable PVEPD Union’s obvious game plan was going to be to scare voters into fearing life under the Sheriff’s protection: response times, PVE street navigation, and PVEPD’s familiarity with (and systemic non-law enforcement benefitting) resident voters all would be fodder for fear. Therefore, it was important that the BCHA’s message make clear that the Sheriff would deliver at least the same level of personal safety as the PVEPD, but do so at a fraction of the cost. Thus, PVE residents could have their cake (personal safety) and eat it too (municipal financial soundness w/o more taxation). This message seemed so obviously the one that needed to be marketed, but Glenn and Lisa Tanner, Tom Bosseler and Parvin Jensen (see below) fail to understand and/or adopt it. To see the product of the BCHA’s extensive efforts, please click http://www.bluffcove.org/measure-e/
“PVE-Smart” and Its Poorly Marketed, Confusing Message: Instead of supporting the Sheriff openly, Glenn and Lisa Tanner, along with attorney David Rice, decided essentially to subjugate, if not ignore, the issue of personal safety via the PVEPD or LASD. It seems the reason for this came down to the apparent absence of three traits in Glenn Tanner: courage, judgment and cooperation. First, to openly and vociferously tout the Sheriff as the best choice for PVE law enforcement, one essentially is openly and vociferously rejecting the PVEPD for the same role; that takes courage, as if the PVEPD were to survive Measure E those who were pro-Sheriff had the notoriously selective-enforcement PVEPD with which to deal. Second, Glenn Tanner and Co. seemed to have bad judgment, not realizing that pushing the pro-PVEPD/anti-tax message was confusing at best, and misguided at worst. Lastly, Glenn Tanner does not appear to deal well with disagreement from others. Rather than subjugate his ego to the primary goal of “winning,” it appears Tanner would prefer to increase the risk of losing in order to “have his way.” Rather than cede ground to others on the same or other side of a disagreement, Tanner has shown a proclivity toward angry, vitriolic confrontation.
“PVE-Smart” Proves Its Name to be Quite Ironic:
Glenn Tanner bungled his effort to lead the Anti-Measure E effort right out of the shute. Tanner decided not to either a) cooperate with the BCHA to present one unified argument to appear on the ballot opposing Measure E, or b) submit one from PVE-Smart (Tanner & Rice) that would compete with the BCHA on a random, flip the coin basis to be the one appearing on the ballot. Tanner and Rice instead attempted to circumvent the BCHA. Glenn Tanner first attempted to cajole and then intimidate the BCHA into capitulating – to allow Tanner to be the sole known submission to PVE for the ballot statement opposing Measure E. When that failed, Tanner/Rice hastily created a formal “PVE-Smart” entity without realizing it would stand pari-passu with the BCHA, a bonafide though under-the-radar association formed well ahead of Measure E. Thus, instead of leapfrogging a pro-Sheriff/anti-tax individual within the BCHA, Tanner/Rice would find themselves in the same position as if they had secretly not tried to “cut the line.” It wasn’t long before Glenn Tanner exposed the very incompetence that concerned the BCHA: he forgot the correct name of his PVE-Smart entity and as a result entered the wrong name onto the required governmental form for submitting a ballot argument. After all of David Rice’s hard legal work to setup the entity, Tanner failed the simple task of writing down the correct name of the entity submitting it. The result: only the BCHA entry qualified, and therefore was selected to appear on the Measure E ballot. Glenn Tanner had lost politically yet again.
“PVE-Smart” and Its Divisive, Uncooperative Tactics:
Glenn Tanner had suffered multiple episodes of losing by this point in his political life. However, he reportedly was in a state of shock when learning of the BCHA’s victory in the “Measure E primaries.” David Rice reportedly was livid. He had hitched his wagon to Tanner’s, and now was beginning to realize that this train’s frequent destination is defeat. Now, one must assume that beating the Measure E parcel tax was truly Tanner/Rice’s goal. Therefore, as is convention with “primary” losers going into the general election, did they humbly and judiciously throw their support behind the ballot victorious BCHA? The BCHA by late January already had erected its Measure E webpage, while PVE-Smart only had registered a domain name (and as the BCHA had feared, never would launch any webpage or presence). Instead, Tanner, along with wife Lisa Tanner, and PVE residents Tom Bosseler and Parvin Jensen, began a campaign of maligning the BCHA and its members. Somehow, despite the obvious absence of logic, Glenn Tanner and his small group of followers thought that non-support for, much less denigrating the most publicly visible faces of the “No on E” movement was a winning strategy for defeating Measure E. Our investigation has concluded that it is precisely this ego-driven bad judgment that has led to Glenn Tanner failing to gain sufficient support in his multiple failed quests for political leadership, including the opposition statement for the Measure E ballot.
Following Tanner & Co.’s failure vis-a-vis the Measure E ballot statement, he and a small cabal of followers reportedly went on a multi-month jihad against the BCHA. They reportedly maligned the BCHA and its members to PVE voters and to the local newspaper’s reporter/editor covering Measure E, using both social media and private conversations. Lisa Tanner somehow thought it would be wise to become a Nextdoor.com “lead,” actually working to remove users who were openly opposing Measure E but not in the way that fit the method/message supported by her and her husband Glenn. Lisa Tanner specifically targeted Nextdoor.com members who she concluded were associated with or actual members of the BCHA. To repeat, Lisa Tanner reportedly thought it would help to defeat Measure E by removing the online voices of users who were opposing Measure E.
It was clear that the PVEPD Union and its allies considered the BCHA to be the primary threat to Measure E passing, and thus made the BCHA the target of a smear and discredit campaign. Tanner’s response? Despite opposing Measure E vociferously, Tanner joined Measure E supporters by similarly smearing and attempting to discredit the BCHA. Tanner would battle directly Joan Davidson, the controversial wife of councilman Sandy Davidson who was a primary marketer of Measure E’s passing. Joan and Sandy Davidson were fighting to discredit the BCHA. So, the leader of the YES side (Davidsons) was getting assistance in their attempts to discredit the leader of the NO side (BCHA) from another member of the NO side (Glenn Tanner). Despite being advised by an officer of the BCHA that while apparently satisfying her husband’s thirst for avenging his primary defeat these actions were helping get Measure E passed, Lisa Tanner made no apparent change to her group’s anti-BCHA offenses.
Regardless, in Glenn Tanner’s mind, it was the BCHA that was divisive, despite the fact that BCHA members openly were highly supportive of everything Tanner/Rice did to oppose Measure E. The BCHA, as is common sense in politics, openly supported Tanner, Rice and others in their “No on E” group regardless of whether or not the BCHA agreed with their message/method. However, Glenn Tanner’s ego apparently would not allow him to pivot from competitor to supporter of the BCHA. Apparently financially constrained, the Tanners sought out financial assistance to pay for two well-designed but terribly confusing anti-Measure E mailings. Again, the convoluted message was something to the effect, “You should vote NO on Measure E because we have this ‘fine” police department that keeps you safe and who you have grown to love, but they cost a lot of money including pensions and that is risky to the City’s financial soundness.” This was Tanner/Rice’s messaging to oppose Measure E, with predictable outcome.
The Result – Tanner Lost the Measure E Election: Measure E lost by 125-130 votes out of nearly 6,000 cast (click here). It is highly likely that had Tanner & Co., after losing in the “primary” ballot statement contest in January 2018, determined to support rather than malign the BCHA February-April, many more than those 130 votes would have swung toward “No.” Reportedly, it was always the BCHA’s concern that Glenn Tanner would find a way to throw a monkey wrench into the opposition effort (e.g., place an ineffective, confusing anti-Measure E statement on the ballot, never put up a “Vote No” website, be a divisive force against other anti-tax contingents). This was a primary reason why the BCHA simply didn’t delegate its expensive, time-consuming No on E campaign to Tanner in the first place back in January 2018. As the ballots were counted, indeed, those fears proved well founded.
Tom Bosseler: With Mr. Bosseler having been a supporter of Glenn Tanner’s initiatives, including the failed Measure E strategy described above, the Coalition considers it prudent to understand his motives and background. Thus far our investigation has found Bosseler to lead a somewhat secluded, isolated physical existence as a struggling inventor. Formerly of Xerox, Bosseler now reportedly spends a significant part of his day cooped up in his modest dwelling, sporadically pontificating on social media. Neighbors have claimed rarely to see him outside. Tom Bosseler reportedly has been an argumentative fixture on Nextdoor.com, making evidently sympathy-worthy attempts to display what he considers his superior intelligence. You can see below the increasingly typical reaction from Bosseler’s neighbors to his disruptive, divisive behavior. However, his failed alliance with Glenn & Lisa Tanner and associated divisiveness against the leader of the Anti-Tax Measure E platform has various PVE residents still concerned over his motives and strategy, and potentially deleterious impact on PVE as a whole should he gain a position in PVE government.
Anyone with legally permissible information on Tom Bosseler is encouraged to email Ankur@savepvefromtonyd.com.
Parvin Jensen: With her have been and potentially in the future a candidate for a political position in PVE, the Coalition finds it important to understand more about Parvin Jensen. We want to be sensitive to her seemingly proletarian life: why were the nicknames “Peasant Jensen” and “Shed Dweller” given to her by various PVE residents? Indeed, Jensen, like her Measure E leader Glenn Tanner, may have suffered a life of losing (politically). Even before her reportedly failed alliance with Glenn Tanner and Tom Bosseler, Parvin Jensen found herself on the losing side in PVE. In May 2017, Jensen applied for perhaps the most humble volunteer position in PVE – the Traffic Safety Committee (click here). The position has been ridiculed, fairly or othewise, as one that nobody who values their time and talent would accept, much less submit an application. Yet, after being interviewed on May 30, 2017 (click here), Parvin Jensen was rejected for one of three openings amongst eight applicants. We wonder if those making the decision to reject Parvin Jensen’s candidacy stumbled across some of her written material. Though harsh, some have wondered if she is semi-illiterate or somehow under the influence of something when writing. We cannot say, but would appreciate a better understanding. Anyone with legally permissible information on political position candidate Parvin Jensen is encouraged to E-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
Definitions to be used for this webpage:
“Shed“: a relatively small sized dwelling constructed with unimpressive materials and overall quality; often built many decades in the past and resultingly having an aged appearance.
“Peasant“: a person regarded as coarse, boorish ignorant, etc.
This web page and related posts and commentary represent both facts and opinions of the Coalition to Save PVE about Glenn Tanner, Lisa Tanner, David Rice, Tom Bosseler & Parvin Jensen, and related parties, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Posted comments made by third parties represent their own representations of facts and own opinions.
Suggested free speech reading for “lawyers” written by the leading American First Amendment attorney UCLA professor Eugene Volokh (who has been an advisor) and thought leader attorney/professor Aaron Caplan:
One-to-one Speech vs. One-to-many Speech:
Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders:
This is why this website never shall be forced to close by any American court of law or survive an appellate process. The U.S. Constitution is not to be ignored.