I try pretty hard to stay away from school politics. While I'm passionate about the topic, I want to respect the people who have taken up the mantle and are running the district.
Elections are another matter entirely.
I am often asked my opinion of the candidates for local elections. As I have done in the past, I'm applying my experience on the board, my history in working with many different parties, and my own judgement about what direction we want to travel in the future.
Bryan Johnson For LASD
Bryan is well qualified to be an LASD trustee. He has volunteered countless hours at Santa Rita where he is a parent. He also has attended many, many school board meetings and spoken up when he felt compelled to do so. He will hit the ground running because he has context. He understands what we're doing in our schools today, and can provide his thoughtful input to the process. I have no doubt about Bryan's ability to be a positive force for our children.
This coming board will have to deal with critical issues like how to share the bond proceeds fairly amongst our students. Bryan has the experience and the temperament to do this wisely and thoughtfully. I trust that he will weight the interests of all public school students who live in our community (and yes, that includes BCS students).
Tanya is a BCS Parent - and has no place on the LASD Board
Having negotiated the BCS peace treaty, I am not trying to cast a bunch of aspersions here. However, I fundamentally do not believe that someone who has chosen to send their kids outside of LASD can be as effective a trustee as someone who has current, up-close experience with our schools. If you don't know what's going on in our classrooms, how can you help set policy effectively?
I'm also troubled by Tanya's blatant attempts to distort the truth of her allegiance. She speaks of volunteering for LASD schools for over a decade. Let's examine that a bit. She did volunteer when her kids attended LASD schools, but as soon as she got them into BCS, she quit working for LASD schools. I don't fault her for that- most parents volunteer where their kids attend. But again, it is hard to know what LASD kids need if you're spending your time elsewhere.
Tanya did work on a district committee to discuss possible school sites, but I was part of the board that appointed her to that committee. We were crystal clear about Tanya's involvement- she was included to represent the perspective of BCS parents. While that may be appropriate on a committee, it is not appropriate for the full board.
Also I dug into the financial records for the two candidates. Bryan received numerous donations from a cross section of community members. Not surprising. (See Bryan's 460 here) Tanya has far out-raised and out-spent Bryan. (Tanya's 460) Interestingly, the vast majority of her money is from anonymous donors. Now, one might read this as innocuous. After all, a candidate is only required to disclose the names of donors who give more than $100. Tanya lists only 4 (two of whom are BCS founding families). The remaining $4556 is all in donations of less than $100. (for those who don't want to do the math, that's 46 donations of $99 and one $2 donation). Why am I suspicious of this? Because last election, I took a lot of flak from BCS when I called out the fact that almost all of Martha McClatchie's money came from BCS families. It isn't hard to imagine a campaign strategy where donors are asked to give only $99 so that there isn't a big paper trail that goes back to BCS.
Why do I get so annoyed about this? After all, I've certainly known BCS parents who are more difficult to work with than Tanya. First, and I've said this before, I value transparency in local government. Hiding one's allegiance seems like a sleazy thing to do, particularly in our very well educated community. If you believe it is time for a BCS candidate on the LASD board, then have the courage of your convictions. Run as a BCS candidate. But don't lie about your background in an attempt to hoodwink the local voters.
I also worry about what happens if things go south. After all, part of the job of the board is to defend the district in the event of litigation. Picture this scenario: If the BCS board decides they are unhappy with how the bond funds are spent, what happens if they sue LASD? Do we really want a BCS parent in closed session with LASD attorneys, mapping out legal strategy? Although Tanya's term would expire before the peace treaty is done, does anyone think this isn't an "entry point" to have a BCS supporter on the board after the treaty has expired?
As a final thought, I like to apply the "mirror test". If things were reversed, how would people react? For example, I'm a retired board member with 5 years of service to public education in a high performing local district. Yet, I would fully expect that BCS parents would be up in arms if I were to lobby to join the BCS board. After all, my kids went to LASD schools. I am not a deep expert in their program. Why would LASD parents be better served by having a BCS parent on our board? We wouldn't.
I don't bear some enormous grudge against Tanya. However, I think our kids are best served by a candidate I know will ALWAYS place the welfare of our students first in his deliberations. I will be voting for Bryan Johnson.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Ethics, and Thanks
10 Nov 2014 8:15am Update: I've added the links to the FPPC filing, as well as cross references to my prior blog posts. At this time, Measure N is at 57.31%.
First, a massive THANK YOU to everyone who turned out and voted. It looks like Measure N has passed, with 56.22% of the votes cast. Likewise, it looks like we have elected three excellent trstuees to the LASD Board, returning Tammy Logan and installing first time trustees Sangeeth Peruri and Vladimir Ivanovic as new Board members. To all three candidates, I offer my thanks for being willing to take on the task of representing our community.
I also offer my heartfelt thanks to all members of the LASD Board with whom I have served, including Mark Goines, Bill Cooper, and Margot Harrigan, as well as Tammy Logan, Steve Taglio, and Pablo Luther. All seven of us have held strong opinions, and we often disagreed, but we managed to do so civilly, and the District is much better off for the service of all of these fine folks.
Back in October, I wrote a couple of blog posts that were critical of Martha McClatchie and John Swan, and the pro-BCS PAC that was deceptively named "LASD Parents for Great Schools". I caught a lot of static from BCS parents when I posted this. The most benign suggested that I was better off to merely voice support for those I liked, but not to criticize people or groups with whom I did not agree. When I wrote those posts, I had to weigh the advice of my grandmother (If you can't say something nice...) with the need for people to understand what was going on.
Obviously I decided that transparency was more important than {fill in the blank}. I mean that sincerely. In one of the many emails I exchanged on this topic, I told a prominent BCS parent that I value transparency in governance above any bond campaign and above any individual candidate. If people knew that "LASD Parents for Great Schools" was a front for BCS campaign money, but they were still willing to elect John or Martha, so be it. But I didn't want them being elected because people were mislead by the name of the PAC, or by the campaign statements that hide the BCS connection of the candidate or their support of charter schools as a matter of policy.
Today I got a bit of vindication in the form of a late campaign filing. A community member forwarded to me the FPPC docs for the California Charter School Association. The last minute filing disclosed that the CCSA gave $22,000 to the "LASD Parents" PAC, and another $6,000 directly to John Swan's campaign. Holy cow! Really?? That's more money than any one of the three winning candidates spent. And remember, this money is in addition to the funds Martha and John raised on their own. In total, Martha, John, the BCS PAC, and the CCSA spent around $100,000 trying to buy a seat on the LASD Board of Trustees.
I don't expect that those folks who criticize me are suddenly going to recant and send me flowers. However, this should serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of the community. Leopards don't change their spots.
This election came perilously close to swinging the wrong way. Early returns had John Swan on the Board instead of Vladimir, and likewise the early results for Measure N were grim. We came really close to being deceived. The message I hope people take away from this is that they need to stay involved so they can be informed. We all have a responsibility to understand the issues on our own, not to just take the deceptive headlines of a shadowy campaign group that has neither a public face. Look beyond the generic campaign-speak and understand where the candidates have been investing their time, so you have a deep understanding of how they will act when they're representing your interests. If nothing else, don't drop off the map over the next two years- because I'm guessing we haven't seen the last time of sleazy big-money politics in our small California community.
First, a massive THANK YOU to everyone who turned out and voted. It looks like Measure N has passed, with 56.22% of the votes cast. Likewise, it looks like we have elected three excellent trstuees to the LASD Board, returning Tammy Logan and installing first time trustees Sangeeth Peruri and Vladimir Ivanovic as new Board members. To all three candidates, I offer my thanks for being willing to take on the task of representing our community.
I also offer my heartfelt thanks to all members of the LASD Board with whom I have served, including Mark Goines, Bill Cooper, and Margot Harrigan, as well as Tammy Logan, Steve Taglio, and Pablo Luther. All seven of us have held strong opinions, and we often disagreed, but we managed to do so civilly, and the District is much better off for the service of all of these fine folks.
Back in October, I wrote a couple of blog posts that were critical of Martha McClatchie and John Swan, and the pro-BCS PAC that was deceptively named "LASD Parents for Great Schools". I caught a lot of static from BCS parents when I posted this. The most benign suggested that I was better off to merely voice support for those I liked, but not to criticize people or groups with whom I did not agree. When I wrote those posts, I had to weigh the advice of my grandmother (If you can't say something nice...) with the need for people to understand what was going on.
Obviously I decided that transparency was more important than {fill in the blank}. I mean that sincerely. In one of the many emails I exchanged on this topic, I told a prominent BCS parent that I value transparency in governance above any bond campaign and above any individual candidate. If people knew that "LASD Parents for Great Schools" was a front for BCS campaign money, but they were still willing to elect John or Martha, so be it. But I didn't want them being elected because people were mislead by the name of the PAC, or by the campaign statements that hide the BCS connection of the candidate or their support of charter schools as a matter of policy.
Today I got a bit of vindication in the form of a late campaign filing. A community member forwarded to me the FPPC docs for the California Charter School Association. The last minute filing disclosed that the CCSA gave $22,000 to the "LASD Parents" PAC, and another $6,000 directly to John Swan's campaign. Holy cow! Really?? That's more money than any one of the three winning candidates spent. And remember, this money is in addition to the funds Martha and John raised on their own. In total, Martha, John, the BCS PAC, and the CCSA spent around $100,000 trying to buy a seat on the LASD Board of Trustees.
I don't expect that those folks who criticize me are suddenly going to recant and send me flowers. However, this should serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of the community. Leopards don't change their spots.
This election came perilously close to swinging the wrong way. Early returns had John Swan on the Board instead of Vladimir, and likewise the early results for Measure N were grim. We came really close to being deceived. The message I hope people take away from this is that they need to stay involved so they can be informed. We all have a responsibility to understand the issues on our own, not to just take the deceptive headlines of a shadowy campaign group that has neither a public face. Look beyond the generic campaign-speak and understand where the candidates have been investing their time, so you have a deep understanding of how they will act when they're representing your interests. If nothing else, don't drop off the map over the next two years- because I'm guessing we haven't seen the last time of sleazy big-money politics in our small California community.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Why I'm Voting No on Prop 2
I am a strong proponent for conservative spending plans. Last year, when LASD saw our first budget surplus, I advocated setting aside some of that money to shore up our future pension liabilities. When, then would I be voting No on Prop 2?
On the face of it, Prop 2 creates a rainy day fund to even out state expenditures in lean times. Like much of what we see in politics, though, there's a catch. Prop 2 also puts a cap in place, limiting the amount of reserves local school districts can carry. In the case of LASD, that means we'll lose the ability to save for a rainy day ourselves. We will depend entirely on Sacramento. We won't be able to have a special reserve to cover our healthcare obligations to retirees, and we won't be able to save money for the next recession when it comes.
Gov. Brown's logic is that the State of California will carry the reserve, which will then remove the need for local Districts to carry one. That would be great, if the State had a solid track record in this regard. However, one only need look at how they've handled their Prop 98 obligation (wherein the voters required that at least 39% of state budgets go to education). In the past several years, when times got tight, Sacramento said simply "we'll owe you that money". Literally- we have an outstanding Prop 39 receivable from the State of California that we never expect to get paid.
I want to keep control here at the local level. We know what is best for our community. Let our local community formulate how we spend and save. Keep control here.
{If this post sounds familiar, it should. I wrote about this back in June. At the time, we were hoping that the Legislature would correct this problem before Prop 2 made it onto the ballot. unfortunately they did not. As a result, I can't support the measure.}
On the face of it, Prop 2 creates a rainy day fund to even out state expenditures in lean times. Like much of what we see in politics, though, there's a catch. Prop 2 also puts a cap in place, limiting the amount of reserves local school districts can carry. In the case of LASD, that means we'll lose the ability to save for a rainy day ourselves. We will depend entirely on Sacramento. We won't be able to have a special reserve to cover our healthcare obligations to retirees, and we won't be able to save money for the next recession when it comes.
Gov. Brown's logic is that the State of California will carry the reserve, which will then remove the need for local Districts to carry one. That would be great, if the State had a solid track record in this regard. However, one only need look at how they've handled their Prop 98 obligation (wherein the voters required that at least 39% of state budgets go to education). In the past several years, when times got tight, Sacramento said simply "we'll owe you that money". Literally- we have an outstanding Prop 39 receivable from the State of California that we never expect to get paid.
I want to keep control here at the local level. We know what is best for our community. Let our local community formulate how we spend and save. Keep control here.
{If this post sounds familiar, it should. I wrote about this back in June. At the time, we were hoping that the Legislature would correct this problem before Prop 2 made it onto the ballot. unfortunately they did not. As a result, I can't support the measure.}
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Endorsements 2014
It's election time, and like most folks in our community, I'm casting my ballot. I don't pretend to be an expert in all things political, but I will share my thoughts on a couple of matters, given my close involvement with the schools over the past 5 years.
For LASD Board of Trustees:
Tamara Logan
Sangeeth Peruri
Vladamir Ivanovic
Tammy Logan has worked incredibly hard over the past 5 years to put the necessary ingredients in place for the success of our District. She is a tireless voice for our students, and has been willing to challenge other board members when she felt we weren't doing the right thing. Striking that balance is a delicate art, and Tammy has done it well.
Tammy also played a key role in the negotiations with BCS. I was proud to have her as a partner in the final rounds over the summer. The "peace treaty" that resulted was shaped in many ways by Tammy's thinking.
I am confident that Tammy will continue to be an asset for our students and our community, and I am excited to cast my ballot for her re-election.
Sangeeth Peruri is a relative new-comer to the LASD community. His kids are younger, and he is not afraid to test the conventions of "how things have been done". He has served ably in the Covington PTA, and has worked diligently on the LASD Citizens Advisory Council on Finance (CACF). I have spent substantial time with Sangeeth over the past year as he tested our assumptions about the right path with BCS. He has also built a substantial knowledge of our schools by engaging multiple points of view. He is not afraid to throw himself into the work, which will help him ramp up on the board quickly.
Vladimir Ivanovic is another CACF member, and is the current CACF chair. Over the years he has been a regular attendee at our board meetings. He has put in the time to learn what the board is doing, why we've made the decisions we have made, and to share his own perspective when he felt it was important. He is well versed in our financial status, which will be important as the District starts to wrestle with the expiration of the Measure E parcel tax and simultaneously increasing contributions to shore up state pensions. His work also includes the Gardner Bullis Technology Committee, the GB Site Council, and a number of other groups. He isn't a huge fan of public speaking, but I've always found his reasoning to be sound. He is also a tireless advocate for open government, which remains important in our community.
I am not able to endorse Mathra McClatchey or John Swan for the LASD Board of Trustees.
Martha has been an active BCS parent for the entirety of my 5 years on the Board. This doesn't disqualify someone outright, but it certainly raises questions about how well they know LASD. I met with Martha to discuss specific issues, and found her knowledge of the LASD program to be lacking. She instead proposed that her knowledge of what draws people away from LASD should be an asset. I disagree. I am also troubled by her direct involvement in the cloaking of expenditures by BCS. She was the treasurer of the Bullis Foundation when BPEF was covertly signing checks to PR firms and lawyers. When I asked her about these expenditures, she was quite clear that there is such a thing as "too much transparency". I do not believe the community's interests are served by making off-book expenditures and hiding from the public how money is being spent. As the old saying goes, "if you wouldn't do it in the light of day, you probably shouldn't be doing it at all."
John Swan is one of the original founding families at BCS. Although his children have been out for a while, I see no evidence that he has remained active in K-8 education leadership. He only recently started attending LASD Board meetings, so his learning curve would be steep. John's editorials in the Town Crier seem to indicate that he feels LASD is broken in some significant way. He complains about teachers in generic language more suited to big city school districts, not LASD. His own children haven't attended an LASD elementary school since 2003, so I'm not sure on what basis he would make that assertion. His editorials are rife with rhetoric from the charter movement about what is wrong with education, but it bears little resemblance to our award winning schools and exceptionally dedicated staff and administration. John just doesn't seem to have a handle on what we are doing in our schools, and what makes them such a unique place for children to learn. He lacks the context of how our schools work or how to best engage with our staff and parent community, and I believe that would be a significant barrier to being an effective board member.
Yes on Measure N We desperately need to pass measure N, so that we can build more schools and update our existing facilities. Although some districts go out every 5-7 years, it has been much longer than that for LASD. We desperately need to pass this measure to keep up with our exploding enrollment. It is essential to the successful model that has earned LASD national and international recognition as a top tier school district.
Each of the trustees I have endorsed would be excellent stewards for the Measure N funds. They are committed to an open process to refine specific expenditures and I believe they will make wise use of our precious capital. They seek public input, and understand the need to stretch our dollars. That is exactly what we want as we embark on the first major expansion of the District in many years.
I thank all of these folks for their interest and their willingness to serve. I believe that Tammy, Sangeeth, and Vladimir will serve our community well, and I encourage you to give them your full support.
For LASD Board of Trustees:
Tamara Logan
Sangeeth Peruri
Vladamir Ivanovic
Tammy Logan has worked incredibly hard over the past 5 years to put the necessary ingredients in place for the success of our District. She is a tireless voice for our students, and has been willing to challenge other board members when she felt we weren't doing the right thing. Striking that balance is a delicate art, and Tammy has done it well.
Tammy also played a key role in the negotiations with BCS. I was proud to have her as a partner in the final rounds over the summer. The "peace treaty" that resulted was shaped in many ways by Tammy's thinking.
I am confident that Tammy will continue to be an asset for our students and our community, and I am excited to cast my ballot for her re-election.
Sangeeth Peruri is a relative new-comer to the LASD community. His kids are younger, and he is not afraid to test the conventions of "how things have been done". He has served ably in the Covington PTA, and has worked diligently on the LASD Citizens Advisory Council on Finance (CACF). I have spent substantial time with Sangeeth over the past year as he tested our assumptions about the right path with BCS. He has also built a substantial knowledge of our schools by engaging multiple points of view. He is not afraid to throw himself into the work, which will help him ramp up on the board quickly.
Vladimir Ivanovic is another CACF member, and is the current CACF chair. Over the years he has been a regular attendee at our board meetings. He has put in the time to learn what the board is doing, why we've made the decisions we have made, and to share his own perspective when he felt it was important. He is well versed in our financial status, which will be important as the District starts to wrestle with the expiration of the Measure E parcel tax and simultaneously increasing contributions to shore up state pensions. His work also includes the Gardner Bullis Technology Committee, the GB Site Council, and a number of other groups. He isn't a huge fan of public speaking, but I've always found his reasoning to be sound. He is also a tireless advocate for open government, which remains important in our community.
I am not able to endorse Mathra McClatchey or John Swan for the LASD Board of Trustees.
Martha has been an active BCS parent for the entirety of my 5 years on the Board. This doesn't disqualify someone outright, but it certainly raises questions about how well they know LASD. I met with Martha to discuss specific issues, and found her knowledge of the LASD program to be lacking. She instead proposed that her knowledge of what draws people away from LASD should be an asset. I disagree. I am also troubled by her direct involvement in the cloaking of expenditures by BCS. She was the treasurer of the Bullis Foundation when BPEF was covertly signing checks to PR firms and lawyers. When I asked her about these expenditures, she was quite clear that there is such a thing as "too much transparency". I do not believe the community's interests are served by making off-book expenditures and hiding from the public how money is being spent. As the old saying goes, "if you wouldn't do it in the light of day, you probably shouldn't be doing it at all."
John Swan is one of the original founding families at BCS. Although his children have been out for a while, I see no evidence that he has remained active in K-8 education leadership. He only recently started attending LASD Board meetings, so his learning curve would be steep. John's editorials in the Town Crier seem to indicate that he feels LASD is broken in some significant way. He complains about teachers in generic language more suited to big city school districts, not LASD. His own children haven't attended an LASD elementary school since 2003, so I'm not sure on what basis he would make that assertion. His editorials are rife with rhetoric from the charter movement about what is wrong with education, but it bears little resemblance to our award winning schools and exceptionally dedicated staff and administration. John just doesn't seem to have a handle on what we are doing in our schools, and what makes them such a unique place for children to learn. He lacks the context of how our schools work or how to best engage with our staff and parent community, and I believe that would be a significant barrier to being an effective board member.
Yes on Measure N We desperately need to pass measure N, so that we can build more schools and update our existing facilities. Although some districts go out every 5-7 years, it has been much longer than that for LASD. We desperately need to pass this measure to keep up with our exploding enrollment. It is essential to the successful model that has earned LASD national and international recognition as a top tier school district.
Each of the trustees I have endorsed would be excellent stewards for the Measure N funds. They are committed to an open process to refine specific expenditures and I believe they will make wise use of our precious capital. They seek public input, and understand the need to stretch our dollars. That is exactly what we want as we embark on the first major expansion of the District in many years.
I thank all of these folks for their interest and their willingness to serve. I believe that Tammy, Sangeeth, and Vladimir will serve our community well, and I encourage you to give them your full support.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Interviewing my Replacement
Early in my career, someone told me that the best way to
gain perspective on your job is to (1) update your resume, (2) meet with
prospective clients, and (3) interview replacements. It’s not as grim as it sounds. The process of writing your resume forces you
to think about what you’ve accomplished and what you’ve learned. Similarly, selling to prospects and forces
you to articulate what your organization does well, and lets you hear from
others what about areas that might be blind spots in your own perception of
your team. Interviewing job candidates
forces you to think about how others might fill in those gaps and perhaps bring
a fresh perspective to the team.
This past December brought several opportunities to do all of
the above. In my day job, I run the
client services team at a SaaS billing
provider. I was chatting with a
client about my “night job” on the Board, and had a very interesting discussion
about how the skills from both jobs cross-pollinate. Someone I met in my professional life thought
I came across as “quiet”, and they wondered if I’d hold my own in a room with
strongly held views. I laughed – out
loud- at that, before explaining the back story to my role on the school
board. Both my day job and my role on the
school board involve working across a diverse set of interests to forge a
shared vision for where we want to go.
When is the right time to the course and focus, and when is it time to
shake up the status quo? We did a bit of
both this past fall when we introduced extended day kindergarten. There are many other examples, and I’m
thrilled with the work were doing.
Also in December, I had the chance to attend our New Family
Orientation Night. This is a chance for
families who are new to our community to come hear about LASD. Most of these folks have a child entering
kindergarten, but it’s also good for families who have recently moved into our
area. Watching the presentations gave me
a great feeling of pride in how far we’ve come over the past 4 years. New parents are excited to hear about our
STEM program, about how we tailor instruction to each student, and about the
achievements as they compete at the state and national level in pursuits as
wide-ranging as chess and mathematics to drama and dance. Our children are wonderfully successful in
life, and I like to think that is in part because we’ve given them a fantastic
start.
I’ve also spent some time over the past month handing over
the reins to Tammy Logan, who is now our new Board President. Tammy has been a great colleague over the
past 4 years. We don’t always agree on
the issues, but I can honestly say that she challenges me in ways that forces
me to articulate carefully what I believe and why. That kind of honest debate serves LASD well,
and I’m sure she’ll do a great job as our new leader. Looking further down the road, there will be
an election in November 2014, and there are three seats up for election. If you’re thinking about running, this is a
great time to reach out to Trustees and ask them about their service on the
Board. I have no idea who might run for
re-election, and who might step down, but our community is fortunate to have a
very deep pool of talent from which we can draw. If you are passionate about public education,
and you’re willing to work for the students who attend LASD schools, I’d
encourage you to consider running. It’s
a great way to serve the community. In
the meantime, I have another year on my term, and I’m going to enjoy working
with our team to continue revolutionizing learning for all students. I want to express my gratitude to the many,
many people who have given me their support this year, and I look forward to
continuing to earn that trust and support in 2014.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
It's all in your persepctive
I've been thinking a lot about communication lately- how people view problems, and how their perspective impacts the way they view what is being communicated. In my day job, I run a professional services practice, and this is second nature. If we communicate the same information to a large number of clients, I know that some clients will react differently based on their own view and how the information is affected by where they are in their respective businesses. This really came home to me when I watched two of our teams describe their perceptions of the same interaction. Folks from both sides viewed it through their own specific lens- their role in our organization.
This was interesting, but it became a sort of epiphany this week as I was watching the videos of the first two LASD-BCS negotiation sessions. For those who are interested in the videos, they can be found here:
Video 1: August 27th meeting
Video 2: Thursday, August 29th meeting
There's an exchange at the end of the second meeting where BCS Board members are questioning the need for the detailed CEQA study, and LASD Board members are pushing back. It got me thinking about the different perspectives at the table.
BCS is a charter school. They are, by definition, not encumbered by most of the regulations that apply to traditional school districts. Hence, it shouldn't surprise us when BCS board members are skeptical of the detailed process we have to follow. They don't live in that same world, so they don't have the first-hand experience that compels us to be process-driven on issues like this.
Likewise, their leadership is appointed, not elected. They feel that their ultimate accountability is whether or not parents choose to enroll students at the school. This gives them the flexibility to do what the directors feel is right, and then see whether people continue to attend.
The District operates very differently. This isn't to say "better"- I'm simply highlighting how our operating environments drive different behaviors.
LASD is not a charter school, so we have a lot of regulations that apply to us. It's been estimated that charter schools only have to worry about 25% of the EdCode in California. That means LASD has 4x the regulations that we deal with every day. It is no wonder, then, that our institutional memory drives us to follow detailed processes. That's not to say we don't innovate- we do, and we are very proud of the work that happens in our classrooms. However, we also have to make sure we keep up with the myriad requirements from the State and Federal Government that are part of our daily existence.
The other piece is that we're an elected board, and we're driven by that connection to the broader community. As mentioned above, a charter school is more-or-less accountable only to the parents of kids who attend. LASD has enjoyed an extremely supportive relationship with the entire community- they support parcel taxes and bond measures, parents and community members volunteer as art docents and library assistants and lunch servers, and they participate fully in the process of running our schools. In order to maintain this support, we are very careful to be extremely open, to include the broad community in all that we do.
As a simple example, the LASD Blueprint Process intentionally included members of the public and folks who don't have kids in our schools. When BCS did their strategic planning, they focused on input from existing parents. The differences in how we operate drives the differences in our behaviors.
I'm not sure where to go with all of this. It helps me think about their behaviors, and hopefully they'll understand our frame of reference too. I don't yet know how we can help their board members understand our operating environment (other than continuing to explain it), but I'm going to be thinking about it. In addressing this difference in our perspectives, we might find a way for us to bridge the gaps in our expectations.
This was interesting, but it became a sort of epiphany this week as I was watching the videos of the first two LASD-BCS negotiation sessions. For those who are interested in the videos, they can be found here:
Video 1: August 27th meeting
Video 2: Thursday, August 29th meeting
There's an exchange at the end of the second meeting where BCS Board members are questioning the need for the detailed CEQA study, and LASD Board members are pushing back. It got me thinking about the different perspectives at the table.
BCS is a charter school. They are, by definition, not encumbered by most of the regulations that apply to traditional school districts. Hence, it shouldn't surprise us when BCS board members are skeptical of the detailed process we have to follow. They don't live in that same world, so they don't have the first-hand experience that compels us to be process-driven on issues like this.
Likewise, their leadership is appointed, not elected. They feel that their ultimate accountability is whether or not parents choose to enroll students at the school. This gives them the flexibility to do what the directors feel is right, and then see whether people continue to attend.
The District operates very differently. This isn't to say "better"- I'm simply highlighting how our operating environments drive different behaviors.
LASD is not a charter school, so we have a lot of regulations that apply to us. It's been estimated that charter schools only have to worry about 25% of the EdCode in California. That means LASD has 4x the regulations that we deal with every day. It is no wonder, then, that our institutional memory drives us to follow detailed processes. That's not to say we don't innovate- we do, and we are very proud of the work that happens in our classrooms. However, we also have to make sure we keep up with the myriad requirements from the State and Federal Government that are part of our daily existence.
The other piece is that we're an elected board, and we're driven by that connection to the broader community. As mentioned above, a charter school is more-or-less accountable only to the parents of kids who attend. LASD has enjoyed an extremely supportive relationship with the entire community- they support parcel taxes and bond measures, parents and community members volunteer as art docents and library assistants and lunch servers, and they participate fully in the process of running our schools. In order to maintain this support, we are very careful to be extremely open, to include the broad community in all that we do.
As a simple example, the LASD Blueprint Process intentionally included members of the public and folks who don't have kids in our schools. When BCS did their strategic planning, they focused on input from existing parents. The differences in how we operate drives the differences in our behaviors.
I'm not sure where to go with all of this. It helps me think about their behaviors, and hopefully they'll understand our frame of reference too. I don't yet know how we can help their board members understand our operating environment (other than continuing to explain it), but I'm going to be thinking about it. In addressing this difference in our perspectives, we might find a way for us to bridge the gaps in our expectations.
Friday, November 16, 2012
What do you want to know?
It appears that someone may have hired a private investigator to dig into my life. Aside from how ridiculous this is, let me just state it simply: There's nothing to find. I'm an elected official. I have to disclose a slew of information (my salary, my wife's salary, every gift I receive from non-family members, every sporting event I attend where someone else bought the tickets, what stocks and real estate I might own, etc.) I understand this, and it was part of the deal when I ran for public office. I just don't like the sliminess of someone doing this behind the scenes.
So I'll put it out there: If you want to know something about me, ask. Don't lurk in the shadows- have the courage to ask me the question directly.
So I'll put it out there: If you want to know something about me, ask. Don't lurk in the shadows- have the courage to ask me the question directly.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
And more sunshine (Buying a school, part II)
If you haven't done so yet, please read my prior post, Buying a School, which details how outside money from charter school supporters has flooded the SCCBOE election to run an attack campaign against Anna Song.
I finally got the FPPC 460 from the Santa Clara County Schools PAC. As is my custom, I've attached the entire document. Here's what you want to know:
There were a couple of really big checks written (including several from the Charter Schools Association, as reported in the well written article on the Patch). I am not surprised, but am disappointed none the less, to see the names of local residents among the donors:
I am particularly troubled to see BCS Board Member Janet Medlin as a contributor. Admittedly it's not a huge donation, but it troubles me for a couple of reasons:
1) I'd like to think that we try to conduct ourselves with integrity here in Los Altos. Funding attack ads doesn't seem to be what we'd want from our public servants. (overlooking the obvious fact that the BCS board isn't elected).
2) I find it questionable, at best, for a member of a governing board to be financially involved in the election of the agency that governs them. Yes, we all still have rights of free speech, and I'm certainly an advocate of that. However, having BCS board members trying to influence the outcome of an election in another district, and to directly attack a member of SCCBOE-- it just doesn't sit well with me.
Is it legal? As far as I know, it is. Is it ethical? Not in my book.
I won't be making a personal donation to Anna's campaign because I don't think it is appropriate for me to do so while I am a sitting School Board member with business in front of the SCCBOE. However, as parents and members of our community, you are free to support candidates as you see fit. I believe that Anna has been a strong supporter of public schools, and she has committed herself to running a clean campaign. The article below has an address and link if you would like to support her campaign.
Once again, this isn't a political ad for Anna Song. It is my observations with respect to the electoral process. However, to the extent that I've endorsed Anna, I don't want any confusion, so I am including her FPPC information in an abundance of caution.
Friends of Anna Song for County Board of Education, 2012
1000 Kiely Bl. #46,
Santa Clara, CA 95051
FPPC# 1241672
I finally got the FPPC 460 from the Santa Clara County Schools PAC. As is my custom, I've attached the entire document. Here's what you want to know:
There were a couple of really big checks written (including several from the Charter Schools Association, as reported in the well written article on the Patch). I am not surprised, but am disappointed none the less, to see the names of local residents among the donors:
- Janet Medlin (BCS Board Member)
- Mark Andrade
- Susan Goldman
- Mark Jensen
- Dorothy Price
- RJ Daley Construction Company
(401 First St, Los Altos) - Donna Young
I am particularly troubled to see BCS Board Member Janet Medlin as a contributor. Admittedly it's not a huge donation, but it troubles me for a couple of reasons:
1) I'd like to think that we try to conduct ourselves with integrity here in Los Altos. Funding attack ads doesn't seem to be what we'd want from our public servants. (overlooking the obvious fact that the BCS board isn't elected).
2) I find it questionable, at best, for a member of a governing board to be financially involved in the election of the agency that governs them. Yes, we all still have rights of free speech, and I'm certainly an advocate of that. However, having BCS board members trying to influence the outcome of an election in another district, and to directly attack a member of SCCBOE-- it just doesn't sit well with me.
Is it legal? As far as I know, it is. Is it ethical? Not in my book.
I won't be making a personal donation to Anna's campaign because I don't think it is appropriate for me to do so while I am a sitting School Board member with business in front of the SCCBOE. However, as parents and members of our community, you are free to support candidates as you see fit. I believe that Anna has been a strong supporter of public schools, and she has committed herself to running a clean campaign. The article below has an address and link if you would like to support her campaign.
Once again, this isn't a political ad for Anna Song. It is my observations with respect to the electoral process. However, to the extent that I've endorsed Anna, I don't want any confusion, so I am including her FPPC information in an abundance of caution.
Friends of Anna Song for County Board of Education, 2012
1000 Kiely Bl. #46,
Santa Clara, CA 95051
FPPC# 1241672
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Buying a school?
For context, it is important to read this well written article by Rachel Stern on The Patch. In it, she details how an outside PAC has been formed to fund a smear campaign against SCCBOE Trustee Anna Song.
Quite a number of people have reached out to me over the past several weeks, and I've been pulling together the information I felt I needed to post an article about the situation. The biggest missing link for me was the source of the funding for the PAC that has run this campaign. One person I spoke with made no less than 5 trips to the SCC Registrar of Voters office, seeking the forms that detail the PAC's funding. It isn't clear yet whether they've finally filed those documents or if the Patch uncovered the funding through other sources, but none the less, there are a couple of key issues:
1) We can't let it become political suicide to stand up to bullies.
Anna Song had the courage to speak up when she felt that a charter school wasn't fulfilling the objectives that charter schools are supposed to share- meeting the needs of under-served students.
2) The influence of "outside money" is very troubling.
The information I've gathered is that this PAC is spending 3-5x above what is normal for a county school board race. One source has pointed out that not a single funder to the Anti-Anna PAC has any connection to the area she serves. This is starting to feel like a pattern with the charter school movement- the same people who deride traditional schools for the money we spend on teachers are now throwing huge sums at PAC's in an attempt to buy elected seats. The reality is that in most communities, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of folks who even know who their Country Trustee actually is. (Think I'm wrong? Pop quiz: Who's on the El Camino Hospital Board? The Water District Board? The Air Quality Board?) This particular attack may be effective for just that reason- because people don't know who their representative is, they're more likely to be influenced by attack ads that distort the facts. That's what I mean when I say it's possible to "buy an elected position"- if you can outspend your opponent because a special interest group is funding the campaign, is that really what democratic representation is supposed to be about?
I don't have the solutions to all of these problems. I do think it's important that we let the charter school folks know that people who attend traditional schools are not doormats. We care about education too, but have made a choice to address it in a different way.
Fortunately the article in the Patch delivers the facts in a clear way that everyone should be able to appreciate. The next step would be to help out Anna. If you are interested in contributing to her campaign, you can do so by sending her a check at her campaign offices:
Friends of Anna Song for County Board of Education, 2012
1000 Kiely Bl. #46,
Santa Clara, CA 95051
FPPC# 1241672
If you prefer electronic donation, here's the link
The thoughts I have expressed here are my own. However, in an abundance of caution, I'm also including Anna's FPPC information in case someone decides to interpret this posting as a political advertisement, which it is not.
I wish Anna well in her race. I believe she has served the community well, and hope that she continues to be able to do so.
Quite a number of people have reached out to me over the past several weeks, and I've been pulling together the information I felt I needed to post an article about the situation. The biggest missing link for me was the source of the funding for the PAC that has run this campaign. One person I spoke with made no less than 5 trips to the SCC Registrar of Voters office, seeking the forms that detail the PAC's funding. It isn't clear yet whether they've finally filed those documents or if the Patch uncovered the funding through other sources, but none the less, there are a couple of key issues:
1) We can't let it become political suicide to stand up to bullies.
Anna Song had the courage to speak up when she felt that a charter school wasn't fulfilling the objectives that charter schools are supposed to share- meeting the needs of under-served students.
2) The influence of "outside money" is very troubling.
The information I've gathered is that this PAC is spending 3-5x above what is normal for a county school board race. One source has pointed out that not a single funder to the Anti-Anna PAC has any connection to the area she serves. This is starting to feel like a pattern with the charter school movement- the same people who deride traditional schools for the money we spend on teachers are now throwing huge sums at PAC's in an attempt to buy elected seats. The reality is that in most communities, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of folks who even know who their Country Trustee actually is. (Think I'm wrong? Pop quiz: Who's on the El Camino Hospital Board? The Water District Board? The Air Quality Board?) This particular attack may be effective for just that reason- because people don't know who their representative is, they're more likely to be influenced by attack ads that distort the facts. That's what I mean when I say it's possible to "buy an elected position"- if you can outspend your opponent because a special interest group is funding the campaign, is that really what democratic representation is supposed to be about?
I don't have the solutions to all of these problems. I do think it's important that we let the charter school folks know that people who attend traditional schools are not doormats. We care about education too, but have made a choice to address it in a different way.
Fortunately the article in the Patch delivers the facts in a clear way that everyone should be able to appreciate. The next step would be to help out Anna. If you are interested in contributing to her campaign, you can do so by sending her a check at her campaign offices:
Friends of Anna Song for County Board of Education, 2012
1000 Kiely Bl. #46,
Santa Clara, CA 95051
FPPC# 1241672
If you prefer electronic donation, here's the link
The thoughts I have expressed here are my own. However, in an abundance of caution, I'm also including Anna's FPPC information in case someone decides to interpret this posting as a political advertisement, which it is not.
I wish Anna well in her race. I believe she has served the community well, and hope that she continues to be able to do so.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Formal Endorsements: Taglio, Luther for LASD Board
It occurs to me that I haven't written much of a formal endorsement for either Steve Taglio or Pablo Luther. I hope that you will join me in supporting them for the LASD Board for Trustees.
Steve Taglio
Steve has served the district well in a number of capacities. Prior to joining the Board, he was a PTA president for two years, as well as volunteering in a number of other capacities in our schools. He brings with him a broad perspective on our program, and understands what it takes to build community support for our schools. In his year on the LASD Board, he has shown himself to a strongly independent thinker (occasionally to my chagrin, but that's politics!) He is not as strident a voice as I tend to be, which is good for the Board and for the community. Having a mix of voices improves the tenor of the discussion and generally produces a better outcome.
Steve gets a lot of feedback form the community, and he represents those voices well in our debates, both in open session as well as in our closed sessions. I believe that Steve's wide base of support will be a huge asset as we move through some challenging discussions over the coming years.
Pablo Luther
Pablo has served the district well over the past 7 years, working on the Citizens Advisory Council for Finance (CACF). Through this work, as well as having had his children attend several LASD schools, he has developed a strong understanding of the complex environment in which LASD operates. With the economy finally showing signs of improvement, it is an opportunity for us to rebuild the finances of the school district. Pablo is strongly positioned to guide that discussion so that we build a sustainable financial model for the future. As a long-time LASD parent, he also understands the unique nature of our school community- how much we rely on parent volunteers, how we work with our staff, and how our program is structured. This knowledge is critical to anyone's success on the Board.
Like Steve, Pablo is alto thoughtful in his deliberations, and he seems to be open to exploring many alternatives to issues that we face. This will also serve us well- fresh blood on the board means we re-examine positions, and ensure that we are constantly making good choices in support of our students.
I am pleased to cast my ballot for Steve Taglio and Pablo Luther for LASD Board of Trustees.
On a related final note, I received a well written letter form a BCS parent responding to some of the comments I'd made about Amanda Burke-Aaronson's fundraising. My earlier posts focus more on the funding side of Amanda's campaign because she doesn't have much of a record to debate. One of the things I have seen over the past 3 years on the Board is that community support and knowledge of our program are critical to the success of any Board member. The years I'd spent on various District committees gave me a broad perspective to bring to my service as a Trustee. I also spent almost 2 years attending LASD Board meetings before I ran for the Board. In addition to the raw understanding of the programs and needs, I also developed a network of people I could reach out to ask their thoughts, gain additional perspective, and further explore issues. No matter how good her intentions, Amanda lacks that network of community support within LASD. As a BCS parent who hasn't attended LASD Board meetings until last week, Amanda lacks that network and the understanding that comes with it. I would strongly encourage Amanda to remain engaged, and to attend BCS Board meetings and seek appointment to the BCS Board. I would be pleased to work with her on solving some of our more challenging issues, in a setting where she can leverage what she knows best (BCS) and I can represent the Los Altos School District, where I've devoted my time and energies for many years.
Steve Taglio
Steve has served the district well in a number of capacities. Prior to joining the Board, he was a PTA president for two years, as well as volunteering in a number of other capacities in our schools. He brings with him a broad perspective on our program, and understands what it takes to build community support for our schools. In his year on the LASD Board, he has shown himself to a strongly independent thinker (occasionally to my chagrin, but that's politics!) He is not as strident a voice as I tend to be, which is good for the Board and for the community. Having a mix of voices improves the tenor of the discussion and generally produces a better outcome.
Steve gets a lot of feedback form the community, and he represents those voices well in our debates, both in open session as well as in our closed sessions. I believe that Steve's wide base of support will be a huge asset as we move through some challenging discussions over the coming years.
Pablo Luther
Pablo has served the district well over the past 7 years, working on the Citizens Advisory Council for Finance (CACF). Through this work, as well as having had his children attend several LASD schools, he has developed a strong understanding of the complex environment in which LASD operates. With the economy finally showing signs of improvement, it is an opportunity for us to rebuild the finances of the school district. Pablo is strongly positioned to guide that discussion so that we build a sustainable financial model for the future. As a long-time LASD parent, he also understands the unique nature of our school community- how much we rely on parent volunteers, how we work with our staff, and how our program is structured. This knowledge is critical to anyone's success on the Board.
Like Steve, Pablo is alto thoughtful in his deliberations, and he seems to be open to exploring many alternatives to issues that we face. This will also serve us well- fresh blood on the board means we re-examine positions, and ensure that we are constantly making good choices in support of our students.
I am pleased to cast my ballot for Steve Taglio and Pablo Luther for LASD Board of Trustees.
On a related final note, I received a well written letter form a BCS parent responding to some of the comments I'd made about Amanda Burke-Aaronson's fundraising. My earlier posts focus more on the funding side of Amanda's campaign because she doesn't have much of a record to debate. One of the things I have seen over the past 3 years on the Board is that community support and knowledge of our program are critical to the success of any Board member. The years I'd spent on various District committees gave me a broad perspective to bring to my service as a Trustee. I also spent almost 2 years attending LASD Board meetings before I ran for the Board. In addition to the raw understanding of the programs and needs, I also developed a network of people I could reach out to ask their thoughts, gain additional perspective, and further explore issues. No matter how good her intentions, Amanda lacks that network of community support within LASD. As a BCS parent who hasn't attended LASD Board meetings until last week, Amanda lacks that network and the understanding that comes with it. I would strongly encourage Amanda to remain engaged, and to attend BCS Board meetings and seek appointment to the BCS Board. I would be pleased to work with her on solving some of our more challenging issues, in a setting where she can leverage what she knows best (BCS) and I can represent the Los Altos School District, where I've devoted my time and energies for many years.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Campaign Funding, part 2
Steve Taglio
Pablo Luther
In my earlier post, I promised to update folks with the campaign funding docs for the remaining two candidates, Steve Taglio and Pablo Luther. Both of these gentlemen responded promptly when I asked them for copies of their docs, but frankly I've been focused on other aspects of my Board work, and didn't get around to posting these. However, following the same theme of transparency, I do include them here for everyone's reading.
Taglio's FPPC Form 460
Luther's FPPC Form 460
Vladimir Ivanovich
Today in the LATC it was reported that Vladimir Ivanovich has withdrawn from the race and thrown his support behind Luther and Taglio. He cited the risk that his candidacy would actually help Amanda Burke-Aaronson as his primary reason for abandoning the race. I applaud this decision- it's a wise political move, and it shows that he's thinking about what is best for the students. I wish Mr. Ivanovich well in his continued service to LASD on CACF and in other capacities.
Amanda Burke-Aaronson
I'd also like to comment on the value of the sunshine process. Within 12 hours of posting Amanda Burke-Aaronson's campaign forms, I'd heard from members of the community confirming all donors except one to be directly tied to BCS. This is exactly why State law requires publication of these documents. The public is entitled to know who is funding a political race.
Ms. Burke-Aaronson responded to questions on the Town Crier website about her contributions. She said, in part "Is it a big surprise that parents at my children's school are my friends? Is it a big surprise that my friends support me?" I would respond that no, it isn't surprising at all. I count among my supporters many parents that I have met through my involvement in activities at my children's schools. That's just part of the process. What is troubling, though, is that Ms. Burke-Aaronson doesn't have support of LASD parents. It would be akin to running for the US Senate seat from California, but not ever having set foot in the state, and raising your campaign war chest in Texas. The people whom you represent have to have confidence that you are actually representing their interests- not just your own view of how it should be.
Pablo Luther
In my earlier post, I promised to update folks with the campaign funding docs for the remaining two candidates, Steve Taglio and Pablo Luther. Both of these gentlemen responded promptly when I asked them for copies of their docs, but frankly I've been focused on other aspects of my Board work, and didn't get around to posting these. However, following the same theme of transparency, I do include them here for everyone's reading.
Taglio's FPPC Form 460
Luther's FPPC Form 460
Vladimir Ivanovich
Today in the LATC it was reported that Vladimir Ivanovich has withdrawn from the race and thrown his support behind Luther and Taglio. He cited the risk that his candidacy would actually help Amanda Burke-Aaronson as his primary reason for abandoning the race. I applaud this decision- it's a wise political move, and it shows that he's thinking about what is best for the students. I wish Mr. Ivanovich well in his continued service to LASD on CACF and in other capacities.
Amanda Burke-Aaronson
I'd also like to comment on the value of the sunshine process. Within 12 hours of posting Amanda Burke-Aaronson's campaign forms, I'd heard from members of the community confirming all donors except one to be directly tied to BCS. This is exactly why State law requires publication of these documents. The public is entitled to know who is funding a political race.
Ms. Burke-Aaronson responded to questions on the Town Crier website about her contributions. She said, in part "Is it a big surprise that parents at my children's school are my friends? Is it a big surprise that my friends support me?" I would respond that no, it isn't surprising at all. I count among my supporters many parents that I have met through my involvement in activities at my children's schools. That's just part of the process. What is troubling, though, is that Ms. Burke-Aaronson doesn't have support of LASD parents. It would be akin to running for the US Senate seat from California, but not ever having set foot in the state, and raising your campaign war chest in Texas. The people whom you represent have to have confidence that you are actually representing their interests- not just your own view of how it should be.
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery. -Jonathan SwiftI still remain hopeful that Ms Burke-Aaronson will seek a seat on the BCS Board, and that when she gets that seat, we'll be able to work across the proverbial divide and solve this longstanding and difficult issue. I just don't think that she would have enough support from our community to be effective in a leadership role at LASD.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Campaign Funding - A Little Sunshine
This weekend I was watching the football game with my daughters when there was an ad on against Prop 37 (the food labelling measure). One of my daughters asked me about the notice at the end of the ad, which caused us to launch into a discussion about campaign finance. Using Tivo to pause the ad, we read through who had funded the ad, and talked about why they might want to fund a campaign against a ballot measure. It is in that same spirit, then, that I looked into some campaign funding at the local level.
Like most folks, I'm looking for a couple of key things when I read these forms:
Amanda Burke-Aaronson
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what to make of Amanda Burke-Aaronson. Initially, I thought that she was well intentioned, but perhaps didn't understand the implications of a BCS parent on the LASD Board of Trustees. However, I've become more concerned as the campaign progressed. She declined to identify herself as a BCS parent at the first candidate forum. She also dodged the question of who had funded her campaign. Since California requires candidates to file statements about who is funding their campaigns, this is public information. I am attaching a link to Ms. Burke-Aaronson's campaign funding statement here.
For those who may not know all of the players, I did a quick pass through the list. It is important to note that I do not claim to be an expert in who attends BCS. However, a quick glance is instructive. There are current and former BCS Board members, as well as people connected to the BCS Education Foundation. She received contributions from a large number of BCS parents, including the person who signed the ballot argument against the parcel tax measure for LASD last year. Even my preliminary look through the list shows that at least half of her donors are affiliated with BCS.
Along the same lines as that TV ad, I have to wonder why these BCS parents would suddenly pour $10,000 into someone's campaign funds. I can't recall any LASD Board member who received such substantial outside funding, let alone such a concentrated amount from a group suing LASD. I want to be clear- I still can't speak to Ms. Burke-Aaronson's motives-- but it does make me wonder what all those donors think she'll do, that they're bankrolling an election fund that is already 3x what I spent on my own campaign just 3 years ago.
Vladimir Ivanovic
Mr Ivanovic is also running, and has taken a decidedly more modest approach to his campaign. I've seen him at a number of community events, but he has only spent a very small amount of money as of the most recent filing deadline. I've also attached a link to his filing. His sole donor so far is the PTA Exec Board meber at the same LASD school where Mr. Ivanovic's children attend. His total expenditures to date are less than $1000.
I haven't yet received the filings for the other candidates, but expect to post those shortly. From the first candidate forum, both Steve Taglio and Pablo Luther indicated that they are primarily self-funded, which tends to make the filings less-than-riveting.
Updated: 10/11, 3pm : Correction: Vladimir Ivanovich's campaign donor is the PTA Communications lead for the school, not the PTA president. My apologies for the error.
Like most folks, I'm looking for a couple of key things when I read these forms:
- Who funded the campagn? Is it one person, or a number of donors? A single donor isn't necessarily a bad thing- I decided not to do any active fundraising for my campaign, so I didn't have a large number of contributors.
- What interest might those donors have in the candidate's positions. For example, if candidates take money from a PAC, I would assume that the candidate agreed with the PAC's positions on key issues.
- How much total funding have they raised? Remember that this is the first filing, and the candidates can still raise and spend more money, but this is an interesting indicator. By way of context, I spent about $3500 when I ran 3 years ago, and I believe that the other non-incumbent, Tammy Logan, spent a similar amount.
Amanda Burke-Aaronson
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what to make of Amanda Burke-Aaronson. Initially, I thought that she was well intentioned, but perhaps didn't understand the implications of a BCS parent on the LASD Board of Trustees. However, I've become more concerned as the campaign progressed. She declined to identify herself as a BCS parent at the first candidate forum. She also dodged the question of who had funded her campaign. Since California requires candidates to file statements about who is funding their campaigns, this is public information. I am attaching a link to Ms. Burke-Aaronson's campaign funding statement here.
For those who may not know all of the players, I did a quick pass through the list. It is important to note that I do not claim to be an expert in who attends BCS. However, a quick glance is instructive. There are current and former BCS Board members, as well as people connected to the BCS Education Foundation. She received contributions from a large number of BCS parents, including the person who signed the ballot argument against the parcel tax measure for LASD last year. Even my preliminary look through the list shows that at least half of her donors are affiliated with BCS.
Along the same lines as that TV ad, I have to wonder why these BCS parents would suddenly pour $10,000 into someone's campaign funds. I can't recall any LASD Board member who received such substantial outside funding, let alone such a concentrated amount from a group suing LASD. I want to be clear- I still can't speak to Ms. Burke-Aaronson's motives-- but it does make me wonder what all those donors think she'll do, that they're bankrolling an election fund that is already 3x what I spent on my own campaign just 3 years ago.
Vladimir Ivanovic
Mr Ivanovic is also running, and has taken a decidedly more modest approach to his campaign. I've seen him at a number of community events, but he has only spent a very small amount of money as of the most recent filing deadline. I've also attached a link to his filing. His sole donor so far is the PTA Exec Board meber at the same LASD school where Mr. Ivanovic's children attend. His total expenditures to date are less than $1000.
I haven't yet received the filings for the other candidates, but expect to post those shortly. From the first candidate forum, both Steve Taglio and Pablo Luther indicated that they are primarily self-funded, which tends to make the filings less-than-riveting.
Updated: 10/11, 3pm : Correction: Vladimir Ivanovich's campaign donor is the PTA Communications lead for the school, not the PTA president. My apologies for the error.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
City Council Endorsements
It is that time of year again- election season. One of the interesting bits about serving on the school board is that folks ask me which candidates I think should fill various offices. I'm always flattered by this- come November, I'm just like everyone else- I get one vote, and that's it. However, to the extent that my service on the School Board means that I interact with other elected officials, I'm willing to share my thoughts.
It is too early for me to have decided which candidates I will support for the City Council race in Los Altos. In a strange twist of politics, though, I've started to hear that others are making statements about what it takes to get my endorsement. For the record, such comments by anyone other than me are irresponsible, and folks should consider carefully whom the speaker is. So far what I've heard has been a gross distortion of my views, and I'm disappointed that people in public life, or contemplating public office, would behave in such a manner. Our community deserves better.
So, how will I be evaluating candidates? It's a fair question. Here's my current thinking. (Like everyone else, I may expand on this thinking before I cast my vote. That's why candidate forums are so helpful!)
I have tried to provide examples from my own background so that my perspective is more clear, but that isn't to say that my path is the best way- it's just for context.
Understanding of the Issues
Leading our city requires understanding of a complex set of issues- everything from budgets and long term revenues to zoning and land use.Candidates need to have a grasp of a wide range of issues, not just be focused on one specific thing. That knowledge can come in many ways. Some may rely on years of service through government commissions. Others may have experience through community groups. Regardless, show me that you have thought about the breadth and depth of what our community needs.
When I ran for school board, I had served on a number of committees in the District, and I'd been attending Board meetings for quite a while. Sometimes candidates crop up who have a limited area of interest (like language immersion, or the BCS debate). If you have a wider view, you'll be more effective on the many other decisions you'll need to make.
Have a vision. Be willing to execute on it.
Steve Jobs once famously said that if you asked members of a focus group about the design of an iPod, they would tell you that they are happy with their Walkman. Government is not be a popularity contest. This isn't to suggest that we disregard the will of the electorate. Rather, it is to say that sometimes we need to have a bold vision, then work hard to build consensus to support that vision.
One of the things I have wanted to accomplish is to establish a solution to the BCS issue. The LASD Board has invested a lot of time in that issue recently, and we were willing to discuss with our community some pretty bold proposals to achieve that goal.
Respect our history, but be willing to move forward.
This may be a variant on the prior point, but it's worth expanding. Our community has a rich tradition- the town is celebrating a milestone birthday, and we are fortunate to have many community members who have been here for a significant portion of their lives. We also have to look to the future, though. Over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers worked incredibly hard to create a framework for how our country should function. Then the very next thing they did was design a process for amending the Constitution. They recognized that societies change, and if we don't change with it, we will fail. It always amazes me that we live in a place that is literally world famous for innovation, yet we seem to struggle with even the slightest change in our community. I value our past (I live in a house built in 1909), but I also want us to think forward to what we need in the future. We need to develop a strategy to keep Los Altos relevant in the coming decades. A steadfast focus on preserving the status quo will only guarantee that we are a museum sitting in the midst of other vibrant communities.
Likewise, I have a strong interest in us challenging the status quo in our classrooms. I've been highly supportive of the efforts of our administration and staff to truly innovate, to develop completely new ways of educating our students. Under Superintendent Baier's leadership, we've pioneered programs that have literally become world famous. We continue to consider what our next move is- how we should continue to evolve to inspire passion in our students for a lifetime of learning. It would be easy to rest on our laurels, and appease the folks who want 4th grade to be just like it was when they attended school, but that's not how you stay on top.
What about Hillview?
The elephant in this discussion is Hillview. I've made no secret that I'd like to discuss the future plans for the community center. That implies understanding what the current and future uses for the space might be, and discussing ways that we can meet those needs. There may actually be more than one option- not just the plan drawn up already.
Some folks that I've talked to have said that they want us to find land in Mountain View, or Los Altos Hills. We will certainly be pursuing that, but we have to look at Los Altos as well. Addressing our city council, one community member said it very well: "This is your brand. It is the Los Altos School District." If the city government does nothing but approve new housing units, but doesn't help to solve the growing school population, they're not considering the entire picture.
I have no idea what the final solution might include. It might be Hillview, but then it might be some other parcel of public or private land. I'd like to work together with the City Council to find ways to help the growing number of students, and the families who move to Los Altos for our schools. If I choose to endorse a candidate for City Council, it won't be because I've already stuck a deal with them- it will be because I believe they possess the skills necessary to serve all residents of our city, whether they are seniors, school children, or anyone else.
I look forward to a healthy debate of the issues.
Have a Vision. Lead. Serve the community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
