|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Voters looking for robust competition to lead local school districts and public agencies in Mountain View may be disappointed this November — so far, there’s only a shallow pool of candidates seeking seats.
Several races, including the Mountain View Whisman School District, the Los Altos School District, the El Camino Healthcare District, the Foothill-De Anza Community College District and Mountain View’s seat on the Santa Clara Valley Water District remained uncontested as of Tuesday, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. Candidates have until the end of next week, Aug. 10, to file papers to run for public office.
The Mountain View City Council, which has grown to a field of six candidates for three seats, will be a contested race. The Mountain View-Los Altos High School District school board is heading toward a contest; all three incumbents and one challenger, Catherine Vonnegut, have pulled papers to run.
Vonnegut is a longtime parent volunteer who has been involved in school district committees and events since the 1980s, founding Mountain View Whisman School District’s annual Choral Fest event in 2001. She will be running against incumbents Joe Mitchner, Debbie Torok and Fiona Walter.
The same can’t be said for other local school boards. Mountain View Whisman school board seats held by incumbents Greg Coladonato and Ellen Wheeler are both up for re-election this year, though only Wheeler has pulled papers to file for re-election as of Tuesday. Coladonato did not respond to a Voice query on whether he plans to run in November.
Three trustees on the Los Altos School District, board members Sangeeth Peruri, Vladimir Ivanovic and Bryan Johnson, have terms that expire in November this year, but so far only Ivanovic and Johnson have pulled papers to run for re-election. Peruri did not respond to requests for comment, and no challengers have taken out papers.
Los Altos resident Shali Sirkay, who announced her intent to run for the district’s board of trustees in May, pulled papers to file for candidacy earlier this week. Sirkay has been an active PTA member and has been heavily involved in school election campaigns. She holds leadership positions at both the Community Health Awareness Council (CHAC) and the Los Altos Community Foundation.
The candidate filing period for a race is extended to Aug. 15 if any incumbent fails to file by 5 p.m. on Friday, Aug. 10, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. City Council member Ken Rosenberg has announced that he doesn’t plan to run for re-election.
Below is the list of elected officials whose terms expire in November and candidates who have pulled papers or announced the intention to run in seven local races, based on the latest information provided by the registrar of voters.
Mountain View City Council
Incumbents: Ken Rosenberg, Lenny Siegel, Pat Showalter
Candidates: Alison Hicks, John Inks, Ellen Kamei, Lucas Ramirez, Lenny Siegel, Pat Showalter
Mountain View Whisman School District
Incumbents: Greg Coladonato, Ellen Wheeler
Candidates: Ellen Wheeler
Mountain View-Los Altos High School District
Incumbents: Joe Mitchner, Debbie Torok, Fiona Walter
Candidates: Joe Mitchner, Debbie Torok, Catherine Vonnegut, Fiona Walter
Los Altos School District
Incumbents: Vladimir Ivanovic, Bryan Johnson, Sangeeth Peruri
Candidates: Vladimir Ivanovic, Bryan Johnson, Shali Sirkay
El Camino Healthcare District
Incumbents: Neysa Fligor, Peter Fung, David Reeder
Candidates: Peter Fung, Mike Kasperzak, Gary Kalbach
Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Incumbents: Pearl Cheng, Bruce Swenson
Candidates: Patrick Ahrens, Pearl Cheng
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Incumbent: Gary Kremen
Candidates: Gary Kremen
I think it would be healthy for there to be a few candidates for these seats. If you are secretly harboring interest in being on the school board, please consider running!
Sorry but Lenny Siegel, Pat Showalter and John Inks will not be getting my vote. Mountain View needs some new ideas to stop us from heading in the same direction as SF.
They’ve been in office long enough, and although they’ve made a difference, it has been a negative difference, my opinion.
I’m so disappointed that Jim Neal isn’t running. He’s the only voice of reason in this town. Jim won’t you consider it?
To the Jim Neal fan:
1) He’s living in Modesto now.
2) He finished LAST in every election he was involved in Mountain View.
3) Calling him a “voice of reason” is a joke. A very, very sick joke.
@No Way Jim Neal – Jim makes sense. You must be one of the voices that needs to be counteracted. Too bad he moved.
“Jim makes sense. You must be one of the voices that needs to be counteracted.”
And you must be one of his cultists. Or one of those trollbots that infest this site on a regular basis.
Sad, really…
I liked Jim Neal because he was forthright. Just like John Inks.
Inks is by far my favorite because he is a principled; tells you his exact thoughts; and bases his reasoned analysis on the Constitution, not the latest fade.
VOTE INKS FOR CITY COUNCIL!
Showalter came to my door in the last election and gave me her promises – which she IMMEDIATELY went back on as soon as she was elected, specifically the horror of removing two lanes on El Camino for use by the VTA. Siegel has stated he wants Mountain View to be the Berkeley of the Peninsula – a horrific idea and nightmare we don’t want. They are BOTH bad for our city and have proven they do not work for a safe and healthy Mountain View.
Mountain View needs strong advocates for a vibrant city that isn’t paved over and overbuilt. Four more years of Showalter and Siegel would be extremely damaging to our city and our people. Hicks, Inks and Kamei are bright, honorable, honest and will work for a better Mountain View for all of us. Don’t waste your vote on Showalter and Siegel.
I agree w Inks supporter. He is the only principled candidate and will be fiscally conservative. the rest will put their their hand up to see which way the wind is blowing before they take a position on an issue.
Can anyone identify the candidates who are willing to:
1) Clean up the streets and enforce parking laws.
2) Crackdown on unsafe drivers.
Thanks
Derogatory comments above about Jim Neal are rude and uncalled for. You can disagree with someone’s policies without insulting their character.
That said, is it any surprise that no one wants to join the rubber stamp MVWSD board who are blindly following the nonsense data put forth by their newbie inexperienced superintendent du jour and, over the ardent objections of hundreds of parents, fired two of the best principals this district has ever had?
The BM is a fraud. Mr Inks is retired, so what income is he required to disclose? Failure to do so is a violation easily reported to the FPPPC. He has filed his form 700 correctly. Either put forward evidence or stop stating lies. Your web links are useless. They merely report a letter and advice from the FPPPC. There is no infraction, just advice. So it appears that u and not Mr inks is the unprincpled one. Your claim about him making a living based on his politics is pure speculation. Can u prove he is being paid income for his services.?
BM continues to lie. Mr. Inks is not required to report income on schedule C of form 700 if he has no income to report. If you bothered to read the instructions you would know this. You’re only required to file forms if you have something to report. Like gifts, stock, and other financial interests.
Go ahead and file a claim. I dare you.
The reports on other blogs about BM seem to be true. He posts a lot of stuff he copies from the internet but cannot connect the dots to make useful inferences. Go ahead and reply, but I will not.
Jim, quick question for you: which city do you happen to live in now, and which neighborhood did you used to live in? Also what’s your name? These feel like important facts about you, but they’re nowhere to be found! They’re certainly not in absolutely every post you make. Thanks in advance.
Have you ever actually read posts here? Name and neigborhood are at the top of every post, and then you post it again at the end of every comment.
It’s so funny when people don’t defend their policy preferences on the merits and instead just complain about “different opinions.” Newsflash: people disagreeing with you on policy and voting for folks they agree with on policy isn’t oppressing you, it’s called democracy. You have ideas that most people consider bad and harmful if implemented, so they vote for people who they agree with instead. If that’s your metric for “bias” every voter is and should be biased. Unless you contend people should vote for those they disagree with?
“Those people may want a council full of the same cookie-cutter ideas, but that is their own bias showing.”
Please don’t run, RichT or EPTF Member, whichever you prefer to go by these days. Your defenses of school segregation really make you unqualified for the position.
Don’t forget to mention, RichT, that you abandoned your neighborhood school of Theuerkauf for Stevenson, while at the same time saying it’s all the parents left at those schools’ fault for the achievement gap.
In response to John Inks fan you said:
“I agree w Inks supporter. He is the only principled candidate and will be fiscally conservative. the rest will put their their hand up to see which way the wind is blowing before they take a position on an issue.”
John Inks refused to disclose his income as required in state form 700 ever since he took office. Is that a “PRINCIPLED” behavior? It also appears he violated the Political Reform Act and will do so in the future if you read this (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/documents/advice-letters/1995-2015/2014/14106(a).pdf), and (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/documents/advice-letters/1995-2015/2014/14106(b).pdf). The fact is if one was “PRINCIPLED” the “APPEARANCE” of the conflict of interest would have not required such an inquiry. He would have recused himself prior to any inquiry. Also, he goes on the record to make claims that are easily proven false, just look at the website MeasureVTooCostly.com. He makes a living based on his politics alone it appears. But he does not disclose this to the public.
All I ask is if he continues this behavior, it should be considered as a valid factor in making your decisions in voting. I am not attempting to induce anyone into voting for anyone in particular.
In response to John inks fan you said:
“The BM is a fraud.”
Please provide proof of this “Allegation”? You said:
“Mr Inks is retired, so what income is he required to disclose?”
As a candidate he is required to provide accurate State Form 700 disclosures found here (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/ns-documents/tad/form%20700/2016-17/form_700_2016_2017.pdf)
that which include:
4. Schedule Summary (must complete)
Schedules attached
SCHEDULE A-1 – INVESTMENTS – SCHEDULE ATTACHED
SCHEDULE A-2 – INVESTMENTS – SCHEDULE ATTACHED
SCHEDULE B – REAL PROPERTY – SCHEDULE ATTACHED
SCHEDULE C – INCOME, LOANS, & BUSINESS POSITIONS – SCHEDULE ATTACHED
SCHEDULE D – INCOME – GIFTS – SCHEDULE ATTACHED
SCHEDULE E – INCOME – GIFTS – TRAVEL PAYMENTS – SCHEDULE ATTACHED”
I HAVE HIS STATE FORMS 700 PRIOR TO THIS CAMPAIGN. HE DID NOT DISCLOSE SCHEDULE C AT ALL. Disclosure IS required. It only shows he will withhold information regarding his interests. That is all I am talking about. You said:
“Failure to do so is a violation easily reported to the FPPPC. He has filed his form 700 correctly. Either put forward evidence or stop stating lies.”
If you wish, I will be happy to go to the City Hall, get the latest copies he has submitted, and find a way to share them with you. You said:
“Your web links are useless. They merely report a letter and advice from the FPPPC. There is no infraction, just advice. So it appears that u and not Mr inks is the unprincpled one.”
You have a right to that opinion. I am not going to argue with you about it. But they clearly indicated a bad history regarding his actions that is all I provided. You said:
“Your claim about him making a living based on his politics is pure speculation. Can u prove he is being paid income for his services.?”
When he does not disclose his sources of income as required under the law, my approach is that until he proves otherwise, he must have a reason to hide his income. As far as being paid, the MeasureVToCostly,com website is a commercial one, it is not a .org but a .com. Thus there must be some kind of financial backing to pay for it and all the production costs behind it. It is not a “not-for-profit” group because those are assigned an .org domain designation.
He is asking the public to endorse him as a representative and that is a voluntary act. Accordingly, he “volunteered” to be compelled to disclose his financial interests. If they are as you claim “principled” than disclosure would only provide a strong basis for public support. But it would appear he is attempting to keep some kind of secret.
It sounds like thoust protest too much.
To all those who voiced support for me, I want to say ‘Thank You!’. When I ran, I tried to give Mountain View a different choice. I ran my campaign mostly self financed and I refused to accept any money or endorsements from special interests. I wanted to make sure that if I was elected, I wouldn’t owe anything to anyone except the fine people of Mountain View. Unfortunately, it’s very hard to compete with hundreds of thousands of dollars of special interest money when you’re committed to staying within the voluntary spending limits. I am very proud of the campaign that I ran and the fact that I was the first Black Man in history to run for the M.V. City Council. I believed that the City Council could use some diversity of thought as well as some ethnic diversity and I’m glad I made a good impression on many people along the way.
It’s true that I have moved to Modesto. I could no longer afford to live in Mountain View. Rent control did nothing for my situation. However, I can continue to voice my opinions and try to contribute to the betterment of the city that I called home for over 10 years and hopefully prevent even more people from being forced out.
Jim Neal
Modesto
(Formerly Old Mountain View)
WARNING LONG BUT CONTAINS TXT FROM THE CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
In response to John inks fan you said:
“BM continues to lie. Mr. Inks is not required to report income on schedule C of form 700 if he has no income to report.”
However if you read John Inks disclosures regarding investments, and in fact he has NO income at all, one can find that he is living way above his “REPORTED” means. This is the typical read flag that substantiates a further financial investigation. The last time I looked, his investment disclosure was significantly small. Another note, a pension income is still income. If in fact he is “retired” then his pension income still should be disclosed. This would contradict your other statement you made which was:
“If you bothered to read the instructions you would know this. You’re only required to file forms if you have something to report. Like gifts, stock, and other financial interests. “
In fact if you read from the California Fair Political Praticies Commission Form 700 instructions (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/ns-documents/tad/form%20700/2016-17/form_700_2016_2017.pdf) they state this:
“Reporting Income:
Report the source and amount of gross income of $500 or more you received during the reporting period. Gross income is the total amount of income before deducting expenses, losses, or taxes and includes loans other than loans from a commercial lending institution. See Reference Pamphlet, page 11. You must also report the source of income to your spouse or registered domestic partner if your community property share was $500 or more during the reporting period.
“THE SOURCE AND INCOME MUST BE REPORTED ONLY IF THE SOURCE IS LOCATED IN, DOING BUSINESS IN, PLANNING TO DO BUSINESS IN, OR HAS DONE BUSINESS DURING THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS IN YOUR AGENCY’S JURISDICTION. SEE REFERENCE PAMPHLET, PAGE 13, FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DOING BUSINESS IN THE JURISDICTION.”
Thus any income of any kind that can be traced to a source that is continuing to do any business in Mountain View during the past two years of any filing must be disclosed. The instructions go on to say:
Reportable sources of income may be further limited by your disclosure category located in your agency’s conflict of interest code.
Reporting Business Positions:
YOU MUST REPORT YOUR JOB TITLE WITH EACH REPORTABLE BUSINESS ENTITY EVEN IF YOU RECEIVED NO INCOME DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD. USE THE COMMENTS SECTION TO INDICATE THAT NO INCOME WAS RECEIVED.
Commonly reportable income and loans include:
“COMMUNITY PROPERTY INTEREST (50%) IN YOUR SPOUSE’S OR REGISTERED DOMESTIC PARTNER’S INCOME – REPORT THE EMPLOYER’S NAME AND ALL OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION
INCOME FROM INVESTMENT INTERESTS, SUCH AS PARTNERSHIPS, REPORTED ON SCHEDULE A-1
COMMISSION INCOME NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED ON SCHEDULE A-2 (SEE REFERENCE PAMPHLET, PAGE 8.)
GROSS INCOME FROM ANY SALE, INCLUDING THE SALE OF A HOUSE OR CAR (REPORT YOUR PRO RATA SHARE OF THE TOTAL SALE PRICE.)
RENTAL INCOME NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED ON SCHEDULE B
PRIZES OR AWARDS NOT DISCLOSED AS GIFTS
PAYMENTS RECEIVED ON LOANS YOU MADE TO OTHERS
AN HONORARIUM RECEIVED PRIOR TO BECOMING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL (SEE REFERENCE PAMPHLET, PAGE 10, CONCERNING YOUR ABILITY TO RECEIVE FUTURE HONORARIA.)”
What you are saying is that none of the above occurred, that is at least what John Inks claims. The instructions go on to say:
“You are not required to report:
Salary, reimbursement for expenses or per diem, or social security, disability, or other similar benefit payments received by you or your spouse or registered domestic partner from A FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY.”
Are you saying his sole income is from a federal, state or local government agency? I will accept that this can be what is happening. But at this time he has not claimed so. It goes on to say:
“STOCK DIVIDENDS AND INCOME FROM THE SALE OF STOCK UNLESS THE SOURCE CAN BE IDENTIFIED.”
If he in fact files his IRS taxes and identifies the source, then he must report dividends and income from selling those identified stocks. It goes on to say:
“ Income from a PERS retirement account. See Reference Pamphlet, page 11, for more exceptions to income reporting.”
That is only allowed regarding the CalPERS pensions. Was he in fact a public employee? If you look at his linked in page, he never was a public employee except for being a council member. He retired from Lockheed Martin, a non-public employment. So this does not seem to apply here. It goes on to say:
“Part 1. Income Received/Business Position Disclosure
DISCLOSE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH SOURCE OF INCOME OR EACH BUSINESS ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HELD A BUSINESS POSITION.”
Are you claiming he does not hold any office or provide professional services related to the MeasureVTooCostly commercial entity? It would appear he is an officer of that group. But he has not disclosed anything yet. It goes on to say:
“PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY IF THE SOURCE IS A BUSINESS ENTITY.”
So at least he also has to disclose his business actions, in this case, since he did a video on MeasureVTooCostly, you know he did some work there. It goes on to say:
“CHECK THE BOX INDICATING THE AMOUNT OF GROSS INCOME RECEIVED.”
NOTE: GROSS, he cannot claim NET INCOME. It goes on to say:
“IDENTIFY THE CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THE INCOME WAS RECEIVED.
So he has to disclose any work that was done on behalf of MeasureVTooCostly. It goes on to say:
“For income from commission sales, check the box indicating the gross income received and list the name of each source of commission income of $10,000 or more. See Reference Pamphlet, page 8. Note: If you receive commission income on a regular basis OR HAVE AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF 10% OR MORE, YOU MUST DISCLOSE THE BUSINESS ENTITY AND THE INCOME ON SCHEDULE A-2.
So he probably does not earn a “commission, but if he is 10% of the investor of the MeasureVTooCostly group, or any other group he is compelled to disclose it on Schedule A-2. It goes on to say:
“DISCLOSE THE JOB TITLE OR BUSINESS POSITION, IF ANY, THAT YOU HELD WITH THE BUSINESS ENTITY, EVEN IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE INCOME DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD.
KEY POINT IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HE DID NOT GET ANY INCOME, HE MUST DISCLOSE HIS POSITION AND BUSINESS ENTITIY. It goes on to say:
“Part 2. Loans Received or Outstanding During the Reporting Period
• PROVIDE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE LENDER.
If in fact he was given a “loan” during this period, it is considered income and the name of the lender must be disclosed. It says:
“PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY IF THE LENDER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY.
He must disclose his lenders business operations. It says:
“CHECK THE BOX INDICATING THE HIGHEST BALANCE OF THE LOAN DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD.
Disclose the interest rate and the term of the loan. – For variable interest rate loans, disclose the conditions of the loan (e.g., Prime + 2) or the average interest rate paid during the reporting period. – The term of the loan is the total number of months or years given for repayment of the loan at the time the loan was entered into.
Identify the security, if any, for the loan.”
So he has to disclose the total amount of the loan or loans and their terms. Simply put a loan is just like getting a paycheck. You said:
“Go ahead and file a claim. I dare you. “
I may not have to, someone reading this may do so. You said:
“The reports on other blogs about BM seem to be true. He posts a lot of stuff he copies from the internet but cannot connect the dots to make useful inferences.”
I think you are putting trust in my critics. That is your right. But if you bother to read from my independent authority, it appears at least on this point, my inferences are conservatively applied and can be significant.
@@Jim
Why does it bother you so much?
Quick answer; I put my information every time so that people know exactly who is talking. There have been a few times where people have posted as me, pretending to be me in order to attack my reputation. I also believe that people should know who is posting so they know how much weight they want to give that person’s opinion. It is also a constant reminder to people that even someone who ran for office in Mountain View was not able to afford to continue living there; thereby highlighting a problem that I am sure that some special interests would love to ignore. Another reason I do it is because it will bring out the trolls who would much rather engage in anonymous petty personal attacks than concentrate on the topic, which in this case the topic is who should be elected. It’s a good way to show the contrast between those who care about the city, and those who want to distract from the problems.
It’s encouraging to see though, that there are far more people that ARE talking about the important issues, such as who should be elected or not elected and why, without engaging in petty insults.
It’s too bad that such a few people and special interests can make the political environment so incredibly toxic and hateful. I think that is one of the biggest reasons that the pool of candidates is so small; how many people would want to put up with it?
I congratulate John Inks and Alison Hicks and wish them the best in the coming election. I wish I knew enough about the school board members to make recommendations. Maybe once there is more information available to me and the campaigns have kicked into gear, I’ll be able to do so.
Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)
I’m also very sorry that Jim Neal isn’t here and able to run…..Jim, your posts are loaded with facts presented in calm, reasonable way that encourages further discussion and discourse which we need much, much, more of.
I’m glad to see that you still post here as I do believe you have influence and can offer excellent history and information. Keep it up!
I, too, had a candidate stand on my front porch and lie to my face about what they would do if elected. In my case, it was Ken Rosenberg, but it was also about the VTA grab on El Camino. Neither he nor Showalter will ever get a vote from me again. I’d write in my cat first.
In contrast, John Inks stood on my porch and said what he would do – then he went in and tried to get it done. I don’t care if you agree with his opinions or not. If you say he is somehow unprincipled or a liar, then you are just blowing smoke. He is an honest man who cares about this community. To state differently is your own bias speaking, not fact.
It is about time that people stop trying to assassinate the character of anyone with whom they disagree. It used to be okay to have a different opinion without having to hide it to avoid public abuse. I find it interesting that so many in this area claim to oppose “bully” behavior – then seek to silence or publicly shame those with different opinions. I guess the irony escapes them.
A free flow of ideas is encouraged and healthy for businesses. The same is true for government. Unfortunately, California has cultivated a one-party culture that has blinded many to the concept that there are other opinions and ideas in the world. For a place that thinks of it self as so worldly and well-informed, the number of people living in a bubble is astounding. Those people may want a council full of the same cookie-cutter ideas, but that is their own bias showing. To attempt to exclude other opinions shows remarkable arrogance. You need only look to the streets of San Francisco to see the result of such thinking. I would prefer that Mountain View not end up as the nation’s next public toilet.
@@Jim
Did you even read what I wrote? It sure doesn’t sound like it.
What I said, once again, is that it is not okay to bully those with different opinions, nor is it okay to call someone a liar or unprincipled simply because you don’t agree with them. I did not say to vote for people you don’t agree with, but I did state that it is not the act of reasonable people to bully those who have different ideas about how things should be run.
I find it interesting that you talk about how my ideas are “wrong” or “bad” when what we are discussing is the election of people with views you don’t personally hold. If you don’t like them, then don’t vote for them. However, there are people out here that don’t think like you. A lot of them. Those ideas are neither wrong nor bad, since places where they are implemented don’t have feces and used needles piling up in the street.
Maybe you should give that arrogance a rest and grab a shovel.
Hey Steven Nelson, email me, I have some questions and advice.
Thanks
@ALL CANDIDATES and voters!
The filing deadline is rapidly approaching!
Please don’t make me buy a suit.
When Chris Chaing resigned, an appointment process for his replacement was executed. The results was Jose G. was appointed Trustee. I liked Jose from the moment I met him and was happy when he was appointed and I have had many private conversations with him, not to mention most other Trustees as well.
During this appointment period, something like 20 good people threw their hats in the ring for the open seat to be appointed by a Board vote.
Now, we have a situation where the voters wont even have 2 candidates to vote for to fill the 2 open MVWSD seats.
WHERE are all the people who wanted the job back then?
If some other serious candidate(s) does not run, then I will and that might well mean I end up on the MVWSD School Board of Trustees!
(Like something from an old sitcom TV show.)
Consider that a promise or threat or warning or huge election surprise or just a good kick in the pants to anyone who may be qualified to run.
People, I implore you, I beg you, please wont someone, anyone actually qualified for the job step up quickly to run?
Please don’t force me to buy a suit!
Once you see me in a suit, you cannot ever un-see it.
I want you to vote for a reasonable candidate, the kind of person who will listen and read up on the facts and listens to all sides before making a decision based on the facts, NOT based on some personal long-term agenda and not just rubber-stamping what the District Office wants without fully understanding and being properly in agreement.
I am not a politician, not a lawyer, not a cop, not a teacher, not a businessman, not remotely “wealthy”, my “new car” is a 1995 Nissan pickup.
I’m a tech-working-class guy. I’m an (old school) liberal, life-long registered Democrat and I have some agreements and some disagreements with all political parties and all political agendas.
I know how to do research and how to argue issues in a productive manner.
I have a child who will be in the MVWSD for 4 more years before going to Los Altos High. My family has lived here since 1988, my wife lived here for her whole K-12 education. We got really lucky one year that luck allowed us to buy a house, so I also pay property taxes and a mortgage.
Please don’t vote for me, but if you do and I win I will swear to do my very best to be what this School District needs. I just hate the idea I would have to wear a suit to Board meetings and functions.
Please find at least 2 other new candidates so the voters have a real choice.
Question, do I have to take a paycheck for this job?
Another question, anyone willing to let me off the hook so I don’t have to dedicate all my non-sleeping hours to the kids, staff and families of our MVWSD???
Last question, anyone got an OK used suit that might fit me?
I’m 6-2 280.