Truth in Campaigning (c. 2014)

Update: 10/22/2014, 8:46pm

Since i posted this article, the filings at the county have been updated to remove the independent expenditures and reclassify funds as being spent directly with the campaigns.  It appears that the "Parents" PAC has been working too closely with the candidates, and has updated their filings to reflect that.  I certainly applaud the honesty, but it opens new questions.  The new form shows a combined total of  over $12,500 in expenditures for Martha McClatchie and John Swan.  This is starting to take on the air of someone with an agenda...  Updated docs are found here and here

Original Post follows:

A couple of years ago, I wrote a few pieces about the campaigning process, and why it was important for folks to understand who is funding political campaigns.  In the last election cycle, the BCS candidates tried to disguise their affiliation with BCS, which seemed disingenuous to me.

Fast forward two years, and we have the same problem all over again.  I've never been a great fan of PAC's.    (See my blog posts from October 2012 for clarification).  I find it even more troubling when groups try to dress themselves up as something they are not.

There is a new direct mail piece out in support of Martha McClatchie's candidacy for LASD Board of Trustees.  As a reminder, I met with Martha and found her willingness to cloak information from our community to be troubling.  (See Endorsements )  However, there's a new mailer out that tries to give the impression that Martha has significant support from LASD parents.  This has not been my experience, and it isn't helped by the facts underlying this mailer.

The return address on the mailer is 1787 Tribute Road, Suite K, Sacramento, CA 95815 which is the home of this political consulting company:  http://www.deaneandcompany.com/

The mailer traces back to a PAC registered at 26625 St. Francis Road, Los Altos Hills.  A quick search of county tax records shows this address not to be located in LASD.  It turns out this is the home of David Spector- a member of the BCS legal team.

The group's campaign filings are available in Santa Clara.  A diligent community member chased these down and I am posting them here.  One might reasonably ask why I've posted them, and the answer is simple: transparency.  It is important to know whose interests someone represents.  

In the most recent filing from this group, I'd note that there a current and former BCS Board members, BCS founding families, and other vocal supporters of BCS.  There's also a community member who is actively involved in the "No on N" campaign.  Read the list, and decide for yourself.  The filing also shows that they've spent nearly $10,000 on this mailer alone.  Mind you, when I ran for the LASD Board in 2009, I spent about $3500.  They're spending nearly 3x that on a single mailer.  I would also wonder whether the filing itself even complies with the legal requirements.  On the form, it requires "Full Name, Street Address, and Zip Code of Contributor" - yet the contributors are not listed by street address- simply by city.

All I can say is, I'm glad we live in a state with aggressive campaign finance disclosure laws.

As I said in my previous post- being a BCS parent or supporter doesn't automatically disqualify someone from the LASD Board in my mind.  Technically, one might argue that these folks live within the LASD boundaries and they might even be parents.  However, they don't appear to be largely parents of children in LASD schools.  

This pattern of strong support from the BCS community further supports my concern that Martha doesn't understand the LASD community.  We expect transparency and integrity from our public officials.  In my opinion, this mailer falls well short of the mark.

Truth in the Courts

In my other post today, I discuss the efforts of a community member to get a copy of Ken Moore's declaration in part of the recent court battles.  BCS thwarted that effort by seeking and obtaining a protective order to prohibit LASD from providing a copy of that deposition to the community member who sought it.  This post examines an important "story within the story" around that process.

In the recent battle over Ken Moore's deposition, BCS filed a request for a protective order to prevent LASD from delivering a copy of what we consider to be a public record* over to a member of the public who had requested that record.

In their argument to obtain the protective order, BCS started by suggesting that Ken Moore was concerned for his safety.  In his sworn declaration to the courts, he tells the court that he is afraid of kidnapping.  "One of the most significant ways I deal with the potentials threats has been to maintain as low visibility as I reasonably can. In that regard, I do not use Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, or the the like.  I do not allow my place of employment, nor the boards that I am associated with, to post any photographic or other images of me".   Yet at the time of the hearing, he was personally featured in a promotional video on the front of the BCS web site.  He's identified by name, so there can be no doubt who he is.  (You can view that video here if you'd like  Ken Moore appears around the 6:20 mark.)  He also has appeared in various other publications like the Silicon Valley Business Journal.  So this clearly wasn't true.  Yet it appears in Moore's sworn declaration to the courts.

I've done declarations, and I can understand if someone made a mistake.  This seems unlikely, though, given the examples listed above and others that I won't include here.  Ken's declaration goes on, though.

"In support of the above goal of maintaining low visibility, I have asked the local newspapers to feel free to quote me, but not to use my likeness.  In light of safety concerns and the simple fact that I am a parent volunteer, the local papers have honored my request".  This statement seems to suggest a pretty sophisticated discussion with the local media.  I'm not an expert on the press, but from what I do know, they tend to consider editorial control to be sacrosanct.

Given my surprise at this statement, I did what a good reporter would do- I investigated.  I contacted the Los Altos Town Crier, The Mountain View Voice, The Daily Post, and the San Jose Mercury News.  Each and every one of these papers denied ever having had such an arrangement in place, or even having knowledge of any such request.  In various ways most of them said the that the suggestion they would make such an agreement was preposterous.

I also asked Mr. Moore himself.  He acknowledged that he had no such agreement with the Town Crier, but refused to elaborate on any discussions with other media outlets.

I submit that these statements are not minor and they are not mistakes.  This was absolutely improper.  In the next paragraph of his declaration, Mr Moore says "I was raised in Los Altos and Los Altos Hills and have lived there for nearly 60 years.  I greatly value the ability to walk the streets, shops, and restaurants and not be recognized or harassed by charter school detractors."  So apparently we've moved from kidnapping to plain old privacy.  But it gets better...

In an ex parte hearing with Judge Lucas, the BCS lawyers confessed that they wanted to prevent copying of the deposition "[b]ecause we believe there could be misuse, embarrassment, [and] harassment [of] our parent volunteers"   Really?  That's what we're worried about?  That someone is going to poke fun of the BCS Board?

According to this declaration, Mr. Moore keeps his image off the internet and he has an agreement with the local press not to run his picture either.  In reality, his attorney confessed to the judge that the real issue was a desire to suppress someone else's free speech, but she didn't correct anything in Moore's sworn statement.

Why do I care about this?  These are just minor details, aren't they?


Folks, this situation is difficult.  We are wrestling with issues of huge importance- literally, matters of Constitutional law, and issues that will shape the future of public education in our state for possibly decades to come.  If participants to these discussions feel that it's ok to invent "facts" to place before the court, we will *never* have any peace.  The community member who sought the video of the deposition lost his request.  I believe that the court was swayed by the declaration Mr. Moore provided.  That BCS was able to submit a false declaration to protect themselves from parody- that isn't how justice is supposed to work. As long as this is how we pursue this issue in the courts, without an honest airing of the facts, I fear that this issue will never be resolved.


*California law has a presumption that public records should be disclosed, unless there are extenuating circumstances.  I will concede that the statue around disclosure of depositions does include an exception for "embarrassment".  To my understanding that is meant to protect ordinary citizens if they need to file a suit involving medical malpractice, or a victim of a sexual assault.  I don't believe it was meant to protect people who are spending taxpayer funds to sue a public school district.  In this case, we're weighing "embarrassment" with the ability of citizens to understand how their government is functioning.

The Streisand Effect at BCS

In 2003 Barbra Streisand sued a photographer to block publication of photos of her home, citing privacy concerns.  In ruling against her the courts found that she did not have an absolute right of privacy, and that the public had a right to see the images. The irony was that in filing the lawsuit, she brought far more attention to the picture than would ever have been generated had she simply kept silent.   (Wikipedia page)

Why do I bring this up?  Strangely, BCS seems unaware of the Streisand Effect.  They have recently spent considerable legal effort to prevent the public from viewing the depositions of BCS Board Chair Ken Moore and former BCS Foundation Chair David Spector.

A member of the public filed a CPRA request asking the District to provide a copy of Moore's and Spector's depositions.  We get CPRA requests all the time- it is part of being a public entity.  The laws in California properly favor disclosure of public records so that the public understands how the government is doing their business.  It's not surprising that someone would want to see these videos.  After all, BCS, (a purportedly public school) is suing LASD, a public school district, for more than $2M in legal fees.  The basis of the BCS claim is certainly a matter of public interest.  Going straight to the source material- the depositions- is actually pretty smart, since it would give the viewer a direct view into the rationale of those who filed the lawsuit in the first place.

BCS started by suggesting that Ken Moore was concerned for his safety.  This was provably false, though.  (See my other post today).  Eventually, the truth comes out, though.  In an ex parte hearing with Judge Lucas, the BCS lawyers confessed that they wanted to prevent copying of the deposition "[b]ecause we believe there could be misuse, embarrassment, [and] harassment [of] our parent volunteers"   Really?  That's what we're worried about?  That someone is going to poke fun of the BCS Board? 

I try to give deference to the courts.  They are charged with a difficult job- sorting out this kind of dispute.  In this particular instance, though- I don't understand this ruling, try though I might.  Parody (the basis of BCS's request for the protective order) is protected First Amendment speech.  The First Amendment was specifically created to protect objectionable speech. After all, speech that is not objectionable speech rarely needs to be protected.  If it were up to me, I'd place the First Amendment and transparency of government above the possible embarrassment of a couple of community members who are suing the public schools.  That isn't my call to make, so I will respect the court order so I won't be posting the video here.  (For the record, I don't have a copy of it).  But I would encourage the public to get to know who these folks are.    

I hate to say this, but to my mind, this comes with the territory.  I've been on the LASD Board for 4 1/2 years.  In that time, people have said made plenty of false accusations and posted ridiculous and sometimes hateful things on Facebook, the Town Crier comments section, and elsewhere.  I don't like it, but it's part of the gig.  As citizens, we have a constitutional right to complain about our government.  When you step forward and take a leadership position to help govern a public school district, particularly as president or chairman of the Board signing  letters to the community and declarations to the court, well, some folks won't like what is being said.  But I didn't run to the courts and seek to hide from the public - all while spending the taxpayers' money.

A Win for Open Government

There was a brief debacle in Sacramento this week which was fortuately corrected due to outcry across the state of California.

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires local agencies to provide the public access to documents and records.  This is a critical piece of legislation that protects our right to know what our government is doing.  It is one of the single most important tools investigative journalists use to uncover what is and isn't working in local and state government.  (As a simple example, on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the misdeeds of George Shirakawa were unearthed by comparing his campaign records and his expense reports with the County.    Those expense reports can be obtained via CPRA request).

I said that there was a debacle that was corrected.  Someone got the clever idea to attach a trailer bill to the budget that would have removed the enforcement provisions from the CPRA.  It would have effectively turnedd fixed requirements (like the requirement for the agency to respond within 10 days) into "best practices", but there would be no enforcement teeth.  I watched with great interest, then, as this provision was surfaced, and 48 hours later, there was legislation to repeal it.

I've been on both ends of CPRA requests- both sending and receiving.  It's an important tool, and my general thinking is that it shouldn't require the threat of enforcement to have agencies comply.  After all, we're spending the public's money, and managing their assets.  Explaining what we're doing seems like it would come with the job.

I'm not sure what drives people to even try something like this.  Open access to government informaiton is a basic requirement of democracy.  I'm thrilled that so many people spoke up so quickly and made it so abundantly clear that we wouldn't stand for this.

Note:  Updated 6/24/11 to correct George Shirakawa's position.  He was on the County Board of Supervisors, not the Water Board.

Right On, Town Crier

There's a super editorial in the Town Crier this week.  I couldn't have said it better myself. 

LASD holds strategy meeting: Public excluded

Next week, LASD will hold a meeting of their Blueprint Committee.   This group gathers periodically to consider the LASD mission, and how best to fulfill it.  We consider progress against existing goals, set new targets, and generally discuss how we'd like to move forward.  The public will not be permitted to attend this meeting.

Outraged?  Of course you are.  Well, you would be if it were true.  LASD is a public school district, and we conduct our business in the public eye.  We invite the public to everything from our Board Meetings to Budget Review Committee, to District Curriculum Council, to the Superintendent's Task Force on Enrollment Growth.  Yes, the public even attends our Blueprint Committee meetings.

Imagine my surprise, then (ok, well, at least my disappointment) that BCS is once again holding meetings to which they specifically have excluded the general public. 

Last night and tonight, May 1 and May 2, BCS will be holding a two part meeting to discuss their school culture, and how to preserve that culture across the Blach-Egan split-site configuration.  I thought this would be a great opportunity to listen to BCS parents discuss their school.  There's a lot to learn here, and I'm interested in hearing the dialogue.  Sadly, BCS has once again excluded the public.  I reached out to a BCS Board member to let him know I was planning to attend.  He informed me that I was not welcome.

This is in direct violation of the various laws that apply to public schools.  For quite some time, it appeared that the meeting would be *at* BCS, but I believe they moved the meeting at the last minute in response to at least some of the issues I raised.  However, the change in venue doesn't address the fundamental fact that a public entity cannot hold meetings and choose which part of the public it invites.  If you've invited all BCS parents, then the rest of the public is equally entitled to attend.

I have raised my concerns to the County Board, although I don't believe they will be taking direct action on this issue.  In that message, I also copied my emails to the BCS Board Member.  However, he has specifically requested that I not publish his replies, so I won't be posting those here.  [Note added 5/7/2013:  I've been asked by folks about the response I received from BCS.  I can confirm that the reply I received from them did nothing to suggest that the venue was anyplace other than the BCS campus.] 

Letter to the County Board
My letter requesting to attend meeting
My reply upon being denied


And in case you're thinking "gee, this sounds like  a repeat of his earlier blog post.  Perhaps he's just wiring in more detail."  I'm not- this has now happened twice in the space of a couple of weeks.  I remain convinced that the BCS organization just doesn't understand what it means to be a public school.


[please note:  There is no LASD Blueprint meeting next week.  Not a public one, and certainly not a private one.  it was for example purposes only.  When we have them, though, the community is definitely welcome to attend.]

Kicked out of BCS

This evening, BCS held a meeting to discuss the 2012-13 litigation. They had their attorney, Arturo Gonzalez, come and present his thoughts on the litigation. There was an invitation sent around addressed to "parents and community". A couple of people mentioned it to me, so I thought that I would attend to see what he had to say. I'm a big believer in listening. If you get your news only from one source, your view can get biased. I thought that by attending this meeting, I could hear the unvarnished version from BCS and see if there were any new facts I hadn't considered.

Unfortunately, it never got to that point. A BCS Board Member "asked" me to leave. Their Principal said that it was within her authority to have me arrested. I tried to persuade them to let me stay, and to listen. I have attended numerous meetings at BCS before, and it has never been a problem. I promised that would not disrupt the meeting, or even ask a single question. They were not to be swayed. The BCS Board member harassed and threatened me and said I had no business at the meeting.

In the long run, I wasn't there to create a problem. I just wanted to listen. At some point, though, you cut your losses. When I felt like there was no hope, I left. I was polite through the entire episode, but I was also unambiguous- I wasn't leaving voluntarily.

Inside the meeting, their attorney was telling folks to let other LASD parents stay. He is quite convinced that the facts are on his side, and that rational people will be persuaded by logic and facts and truth. Ironically, I agree with him that it is important to hear all of the facts, which is why I was there in the first place.

I can't imagine barring a community member from a meeting at an LASD school, especially not one that involves such an important issue. Last spring, I went to many LASD schools to discuss the proposed mediation settlement. There were BCS parents in the audience, but I didn't mind. If people want to hear what you have to say, why wouldn't you welcome them? If the facts are on your side, why wouldn't you want someone to hear those facts? Shouldn't those facts be out for everyone to consider?

I want to acknowledge that there were some BCS parents in the room who stood up for the LASD parents who also attended. They encouraged the open dialogue, and I applaud them for it. By that point in the discussion, I'd already been chased out, but I'm glad that some members of the community were able to stay, and I congratulate the BCS folks who were willing to rise above the chaos.

I've been taking a pounding lately from some BCS supporters who keep calling for more meetings and increased dialogue. Yet, on this occasion, when all I wanted to do was listen (and even their attorney said he was fine with me being there), I was chased away. More's the pity.

LASD provides responses to BCS questions

2013-14 Offer Process

On Feb 13, 2013, Tamara Logan and I met with BCS Board members Joe Hurd and Peter Evans to disucss the Preliminary Offer (PO).  As I noted in my Feb 11 email to Ken Moore , there were some practical limitations to that meeting.  For example, since District staff were already committed to a different meeting to review District finances, we wouldn't be able to provide answers to some of their questions.  During the meeting, we kept running notes of the question, which all parties reiviewed and accepted.  Since then, the District has pulled together responses to the questions.

Yesterday, I sent these responses to BCS.  I've also committed that we would make these responses public, in an effort to maintain transparency in the process.  I have attached the responses here.

Responses to BCS Prop 39 Questions
Transmittal Note to BCS

LASD offers to meet

This letter has just been sent to Ken Moore, Chairman of the BCS Board.


Ken-

This evening at our Board meeting, the District discussed the need for improved dialogue regarding the Prop 39 offer. As you are probably aware, we had previously considered holding a special Board meeting on February 25th to collect BCS input on the current prop 39 offer.

On behalf of LASD, I'd like to invite BCS to participate in a Prop 39 meeting on Wednesday, Feb 13th. Although this is exceptionally short notice, we believe this discussion would be beneficial to both sides. LASD is concerned that a meeting that late in the month would not provide adequate time to collect the questions you might have, prepare meaningful responses, and then to have that feedback incorporated in the BCS response due on March 1st. By accelerating the discussion, it gives a greater opportunity to provide information which might be important in your Prop 39 response on March 1st.

In keeping with the LASD requirements for openness and transparency, the meeting will be open to the public. In an effort to make the meeting as productive as possible,we are requesting that you send a team of no more than 2 people. LASD will do the same. Other Board members are welcome to observe from the audience, but our goal is to have a constructive dialogue, and we believe that is best achieved with small teams form both sides.

I want to make sure we set expectations correctly. Randy Kenyon will be attending a CACF meeting, and we are not likely to be able to answer a large number of questions. However, we'll collect the questions, discuss what you need, and we will commit to as quick a response as we can. All of our responses will be posted to the District web site, so that the public can follow along with the dialogue.

We are nailing down specifics of location, but I expect the meeting will be held at 7pm on Wednesday evening. Please let me know as quickly as possible of the BCS team will be able to attend. I've already discussed this with Joe Hurd, and I'm hoping that the BCS team will come in a spirit of collaboration and constructive dialogue.

Best wishes,

DJS

Thoughts On Being a Public School

Several months ago, the District field a cross complaint, asking the courts to evaluate whether BCS is truly a public school.   BCS has ridiculed the cross complaint, both in the press and in front of the courts.  At the core of the cross complaint, we've said they behave more like a private school than a public school.  This isn't meant to be a derogatory statement- our community has many private schools, and they seem to do a good job of educating students.  However, they aren't bound by the same rules that public schools are bound by- they can choose what students they accept, they are free from many of the obligations of public schools.  Let's step away from the heated discussion for a moment, and consider a simpler example: public meetings.

Because LASD is a public school district, we conduct our meetings under the Brown Act.  BCS has said that they follow the Brown Act.  Wanny Hersey has asserted this in communications with me and with the SCCBOE, including this instance, from an exchange in Dec 2011 where she also derides LASD for an unspecified Brown Act violation.  So let's look at this a bit deeper.

LASD does our best to follow not just the letter of the Brown Act, but the spirit of the law also.  I've personally been involved in discussions where we chose to delay meetings rather than utilize the "short notice" provisions under the Act.  We ensure the public has a place to wait while we meet in closed session, and when we anticipate a large crowd, we hold the meeting in an appropriate venue.  We also ensure that we receive public input before closed session, and report out any actions taken.

By contrast, I've seen several instances where BCS has either explicitly violated the Brown Act, or has skated dangerously close to doing so.  Some examples:

BCS posted a meeting notice stating that their meeting would be held Nov 6, 2012.  I found that odd, since Nov 6 was election day.  I snapped a photo of the notice as posted on the evening of Nov 4th.  When BCS apparently recognized the mistake, they simply changed the date on the agenda they emailed out on November 5th.  The minutes from that meeting - held November 5th- can be found on the BCS web site here.  The first part was likely an honest clerical error, but someone recognized the error before the meeting was held.  Rather than delay the meeting, they moved forward with a meeting that was not noticed to the public.

In May 2012, during a particularly contentious period, LASDVoices was regularly attending BCS Board Meetings.  Here is the report of one member of that group (in an email to the SCCBOE) about how the "report out from closed session" was handled.  In a nutshell, the email suggest that the "report out" was never made, or was done so in a manner that seems intentionally designed to deprive the public of knowing what happened.

Today, BCS held a meeting at the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation offices in Palo Alto, which puts them about 4 miles from BCS/Egan, and are definitely outside District Boundaries.  I don't know whether BCS is compliant with the "meet within the jurisdiction" requirement based on the fact that they are chartered with the County.  However, is it that difficult to find meeting space within the District's boundaries, so that community members can attend? 

I've also previously blogged about my experiences with BCS Board members when I recorded their board meetings, also explicitly permitted under the Brown Act.  Board member Janet Medlin took strong exception to my efforts, and also strongly criticized me for publishing the sworn deposition of a BCS Board member. 

During today's meeting, BCS Board Member Janet Medlin once again took me to task, it appears, for how I've insisted that the BCS facilities meetings this year be very public.  She posted part of an email exchange wherein she agreed with my request for public meetings, and implied to the public that she'd initiated the discussion.  I don't care about who gets credit, but I do care a lot that in that same exchange, she was arguing in favor of a "pre-meeting", a meeting over the weekend in advance of the LASD Board meeting.  I don't know how she thought that her proposal kept with my requirement that the meetings be public, but it certainly didn't come out in the full email exchange. 


So What?
To borrow a now famous phrase, "so what?"  These seem like small, innocuous things.  When it comes to serious matters of law, the general public might call these "technicalities" and accuse me of being overly pedantic.  That's part of the point, though.  The law *is* pedantic.  It demands that we follow it at all times.  LASD has a culture of understanding the legal requirements and following them in all aspects of how we conduct ourselves, from the largest matters of what students we educate down to the little things like how we post notice of our meetings.  If we educated 98% of our students in accordance with the law, there would still be nearly 100 children deprived of their rights to a public education.  To me, that isn't acceptable.

I work in private industry during the day.  I'm used to calling meetings on a split second notice, and reacting quickly to the situation.  As a public official, though, I have to be more measured.  I have a responsibility to the public, and part of that means ensuring the public can participate in the process.  I highlight this because I'm not convinced that all members of the BCS Board fully understand what it means to be a public entity.  Some BCS Board members (and especially their attorney) have scoffed at the District's allegations.  I'm not saying that all of these incidents were born out of ill intent.  However, I do think that some members of the BCS Board haven't fully internalized what it means to be a public entity, and to accept taxpayer funds.  It's easy to overlook the details, but it's not fair to say that the details don't matter.  The details do matter, because every child is entitled to a great public education- even the ones that don't attend a charter school.

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. 

For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.  -Jonathan Swift

I 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.