News

School board candidate's settlement agreement with district bans him from campuses

Mountain View Whisman school board candidate Manny Velasco is former district employee

A school board candidate has signed a settlement with the Mountain View Whisman School District, raising questions about the candidacy. Photo by Sammy Dallal

Former Mountain View Whisman School District employee and school board candidate Manny Velasco signed a settlement agreement with the district when he quit his job earlier this year. The agreement prohibits him from entering district property or working for the school district again, even as a volunteer.

The agreement, signed on Jan. 10, puts to bed disputes between Velasco and the district's leadership and prevents lawsuits between the two parties. In exchange, Velasco received just under $37,000 for pay through June of this year. The settlement was not publicly known until the Voice requested a copy from the district last week.

Velasco said he does not believe the agreement poses a conflict in his bid for the school board, and questioned why the district would provide a copy of the settlement. He said his candidacy is based solely on his desire to support students and their families after working with them firsthand for more than a decade.

"My purpose for running, as was my purpose during my 15 years of service at the district, is to ensure all students have a fair and equitable learning environment," Velasco said. "The district is the heart of our community and our schools should be the standard of education."

Manny Velasco. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

Velasco has served several roles in the district, first as a special education instructional assistant and later as the district's School Linked Services coordinator, tasked with engaging more parents and linking underserved students to community services. His last job was as a School and Community Engagement Facilitator for Bubb, Huff and Stevenson elementary schools.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

By signing the settlement, Velasco immediately terminated his job with the district and agreed "not to pursue, apply for or otherwise seek employment, volunteer, or other service opportunities with the district or any of its schools, in any capacity." It also prohibits him from entering any district property unless it is an event where members of the public are invited to attend.

The agreement also references a formal recommendation for disciplinary action, which the district agreed to drop and seal in a separate part of Velasco's personnel file. Velasco would, in turn, drop his request for a hearing. No other details have been released about the personnel dispute or the disciplinary action recommended by the district. Velasco said he received sterling annual reviews for his performance over the years, and sought a smooth transition up to his last day of work in January.

Both Velasco and district officials declined to reveal the reason behind the settlement, saying they could not discuss any specifics due to confidentiality stipulations.

In a statement, district spokeswoman Shelly Hausman said the district has no intention of preventing Velasco from running for the school board or interfering with his campaign as a member of the community. But that could change if he wins the election this November.

"Should Mr. Velasco win the election and decide to accept the trustee position, the district will examine its options and pursue legal remedies," Hausman said, declining to say what those remedies could be.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Velasco, for his part, said he is completely within his rights to run for the school board and can effectively serve as a trustee under the constraints of his settlement -- something that was explicitly asked about when the agreement was drafted. Being a school board member makes him neither an employee or a volunteer, Velasco said, and the ban on entering district property just puts him in the realm of a community member.

"As a board member I would adhere to the past practice where board members visit schools only when accompanied by district administration," he said. "Even so, if necessary and appropriate, the agreement can be modified."

A similar situation took place last month in the San Mateo Community College District, where school board candidate Eugene Whitlock was found to have signed a settlement agreement that severely curtailed his interactions with the district. Whitlock is the district's former head of HR, and took a $2.3 million settlement that prohibits him from contacting the district or its colleges -- either directly or indirectly. Whitlock has since withdrawn from the race.

Velasco pointed to a 2008 case in which Alum Rock Elementary School District sued one of its former employees, Dolores Marquez, to prevent her from serving as a trustee after she had signed a similar agreement. Velasco said her right to run was protected under the First Amendment, and that the court eventually ruled in her favor.

Velasco said it would not only be erroneous for the Mountain View Whisman School District to claim the agreement prevents him from serving as a trustee, but would also amount to intimidation.

"The insinuation that the district could create an agreement to coerce me out of running for office seems to be something that goes against the values of our district and not something I believe taxpayers would want their money to go toward," Velasco said.

Velasco is one of five candidates vying for three seats on the school board this November. He is competing against incumbent Laura Blakely, former trustee Chris Chiang, Crittenden parent Patrick Neschleba and district parent Laura Ramirez Berman. Two incumbents, Jose Gutierrez and Tamara Wilson, did not run for re-election.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

School board candidate's settlement agreement with district bans him from campuses

Mountain View Whisman school board candidate Manny Velasco is former district employee

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Mon, Oct 5, 2020, 12:26 pm

Former Mountain View Whisman School District employee and school board candidate Manny Velasco signed a settlement agreement with the district when he quit his job earlier this year. The agreement prohibits him from entering district property or working for the school district again, even as a volunteer.

The agreement, signed on Jan. 10, puts to bed disputes between Velasco and the district's leadership and prevents lawsuits between the two parties. In exchange, Velasco received just under $37,000 for pay through June of this year. The settlement was not publicly known until the Voice requested a copy from the district last week.

Velasco said he does not believe the agreement poses a conflict in his bid for the school board, and questioned why the district would provide a copy of the settlement. He said his candidacy is based solely on his desire to support students and their families after working with them firsthand for more than a decade.

"My purpose for running, as was my purpose during my 15 years of service at the district, is to ensure all students have a fair and equitable learning environment," Velasco said. "The district is the heart of our community and our schools should be the standard of education."

Velasco has served several roles in the district, first as a special education instructional assistant and later as the district's School Linked Services coordinator, tasked with engaging more parents and linking underserved students to community services. His last job was as a School and Community Engagement Facilitator for Bubb, Huff and Stevenson elementary schools.

By signing the settlement, Velasco immediately terminated his job with the district and agreed "not to pursue, apply for or otherwise seek employment, volunteer, or other service opportunities with the district or any of its schools, in any capacity." It also prohibits him from entering any district property unless it is an event where members of the public are invited to attend.

The agreement also references a formal recommendation for disciplinary action, which the district agreed to drop and seal in a separate part of Velasco's personnel file. Velasco would, in turn, drop his request for a hearing. No other details have been released about the personnel dispute or the disciplinary action recommended by the district. Velasco said he received sterling annual reviews for his performance over the years, and sought a smooth transition up to his last day of work in January.

Both Velasco and district officials declined to reveal the reason behind the settlement, saying they could not discuss any specifics due to confidentiality stipulations.

In a statement, district spokeswoman Shelly Hausman said the district has no intention of preventing Velasco from running for the school board or interfering with his campaign as a member of the community. But that could change if he wins the election this November.

"Should Mr. Velasco win the election and decide to accept the trustee position, the district will examine its options and pursue legal remedies," Hausman said, declining to say what those remedies could be.

Velasco, for his part, said he is completely within his rights to run for the school board and can effectively serve as a trustee under the constraints of his settlement -- something that was explicitly asked about when the agreement was drafted. Being a school board member makes him neither an employee or a volunteer, Velasco said, and the ban on entering district property just puts him in the realm of a community member.

"As a board member I would adhere to the past practice where board members visit schools only when accompanied by district administration," he said. "Even so, if necessary and appropriate, the agreement can be modified."

A similar situation took place last month in the San Mateo Community College District, where school board candidate Eugene Whitlock was found to have signed a settlement agreement that severely curtailed his interactions with the district. Whitlock is the district's former head of HR, and took a $2.3 million settlement that prohibits him from contacting the district or its colleges -- either directly or indirectly. Whitlock has since withdrawn from the race.

Velasco pointed to a 2008 case in which Alum Rock Elementary School District sued one of its former employees, Dolores Marquez, to prevent her from serving as a trustee after she had signed a similar agreement. Velasco said her right to run was protected under the First Amendment, and that the court eventually ruled in her favor.

Velasco said it would not only be erroneous for the Mountain View Whisman School District to claim the agreement prevents him from serving as a trustee, but would also amount to intimidation.

"The insinuation that the district could create an agreement to coerce me out of running for office seems to be something that goes against the values of our district and not something I believe taxpayers would want their money to go toward," Velasco said.

Velasco is one of five candidates vying for three seats on the school board this November. He is competing against incumbent Laura Blakely, former trustee Chris Chiang, Crittenden parent Patrick Neschleba and district parent Laura Ramirez Berman. Two incumbents, Jose Gutierrez and Tamara Wilson, did not run for re-election.

Comments

Cfrink
Registered user
Willowgate
on Oct 5, 2020 at 2:29 pm
Cfrink, Willowgate
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 2:29 pm
22 people like this

It seems strange that Mr. Velasco would choose to run under these circumstances and not disclose this information, particularly since it involves a disciplinary matter.


Ri Kane
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Oct 5, 2020 at 2:34 pm
Ri Kane, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 2:34 pm
23 people like this

@Cleve - why would Velasco have to disclose if there was a confidentiality agreement? Non-disclosure is the literal purpose of confidentially agreements.

The real weird part is that the school district would break the settlement to go after Velasco in this way


just_jay
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Oct 5, 2020 at 2:57 pm
just_jay, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 2:57 pm
26 people like this

Thank you, MV Voice, for showing the value of journalism.

I skimmed that agreement, and I don't see anything that imposes confidentiality on Mr. Velasco. The school district would have an obligation to keep personnel matters confidential (aside from mandatory elements of the law, such as turning over this document when requested). But it appears Mr. Velasco is free to talk. And he should, if he wants my vote.


Not an employment lawyer, however...
Registered user
Waverly Park
on Oct 5, 2020 at 4:21 pm
Not an employment lawyer, however..., Waverly Park
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 4:21 pm
15 people like this

As a side note, California Assembly Bill 749, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, prohibits “no re-hire” provisions in employment settlement agreements. Given this agreement went into effect on January 10th, it appears as if that provision of the agreement between the district and Mr. Velasco is unenforceable.


Middle S Parent
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Oct 5, 2020 at 4:40 pm
Middle S Parent, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 4:40 pm
45 people like this

>The settlement was not publicly known until the Voice requested a copy from the district last week

Hmm, I wonder how they knew to ask for it? Well actually, I don't! It's clear the district leaked it in order to hamper Velasco's bid.

I for one support him. Given the way the district has treated past employees such as the superlative Principals let go two years, all he did was probably to question some ridiculous edict coming from the district office.

Don't reward this dirty politics being played by the district!


Christopher Chiang
Registered user
North Bayshore
on Oct 5, 2020 at 4:52 pm
Christopher Chiang, North Bayshore
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 4:52 pm
88 people like this

I do not know the details of Mr. Velasco settlement with the district, yet we need to consider the following:

1) Mr. Velasco as union president is placed in a position that puts him frequent possible tension with the district (not a judgment of anyone's character, but the duties of the role require the union president to advocate).

2) -If- the disciplinary action was serious (like safety or illegal activity), there would not be a financial severance attached to it. Mr. Velasco was paid out for the rest of the year, severances in district affairs are often used when there's a disagreement on the way to do things, and disciplinary actions of this nature often involve insubordination or claims of negligence that stem from those disagreements (leading to severances that are cheaper than parting through the due process provided by the district labor agreement).

3) I do know the district lawyers (paid by taxpayers) have communicated with Mr. Velasco about the election. While I do not know the contents of those communications, I do know that it's very easy to feel intimated and silenced by such correspondence.

I hope the current board is looking very carefully at whether this is the proper use of tax dollars, ensuring there is no hint of publicly funded legal or communications services being used for political reasons. The district already spends 329% above state average on professional/consulting services like lawyers for example. Web Link

I am saddened to see any person who gives their career to the children and families of MVWSD to have their reputation single sidely tarnished by a situation that binds his ability to defend himself.

The right thing for the school board and district to do is to immediately free Mr. Velasco from the binding agreement so that he can speak his side, and the district can then speak their side too. The public is owed this.

I know for certain, Mr. Velasco very much wants the public to know the truth.


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Oct 5, 2020 at 8:15 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 8:15 pm
53 people like this

The article reports that both the candidate and the district declined to discuss underlying facts because of "confidentiality stipulations." Where are these "stipulations"? The district surely has some duty of confidentially under state law - but why does the candidate think (if he does) that he can't explain the matter?


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 5, 2020 at 9:31 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 9:31 pm
59 people like this

I can't just shake this feeling.

What got this settlement going in the first place?

Did the candidate misuse school funds/property?

Did the candidate conduct himself unprofessionally with the students?

Did the candidate pose some kind of danger to the students?

The VOTERS have a RIGHT to know this BEFORE the election.


Bottom Line?
Registered user
Cuernavaca
on Oct 5, 2020 at 11:17 pm
Bottom Line?, Cuernavaca
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 11:17 pm
30 people like this

Lots of ifs and possible scenarios and none of us are privy to all of the information.

Bottom line: Can he be an effective school board member? In highly-functioning districts that generally entails working collaboratively with other board members and the superintendent. I don't know the candidate. But it's difficult to envision. If it fails, the kids in the district bear the brunt.
There are other strong candidates.


ski6
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 5, 2020 at 11:54 pm
ski6, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 11:54 pm
38 people like this

This is a clear effort by Dr. Rudolph to thwart a perceived enemy of the district. Manny served the district for many years in the position of a SCEF. He speaks Spanish, understands the many challenges and provides outreach to the SES disadvantaged students. Also he is a wonderful person. The fact that the district is releasing an 'October election surprise' on Manny is shameful. Since Jose is not running for re-election, who will represent the 40%+ latinx families on our school board? We need a diverse school board to represent the diversity of Mountain View students and families. MVWSD uses intimidation to silence employees from speaking out about problems within the district. I applaud Manny's courage to run for school board. Go Manny!


ski6
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 5, 2020 at 11:56 pm
ski6, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2020 at 11:56 pm
14 people like this

Manny served the district for many years in the position of a SCEF. He speaks Spanish, understands the challenges students face, and provides outreach to the SES disadvantaged students. Also he is a wonderful person. The fact that the district is releasing an 'October election surprise' on Manny is shameful. Since Jose is not running for re-election, who will represent the 40%+ latinx families on our school board? We need a diverse school board to represent the diversity of Mountain View students and families. MVWSD uses intimidation to silence employees from speaking out about problems within the district. I applaud Manny's courage to run for school board. Go Manny!


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 6, 2020 at 12:40 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 12:40 am
55 people like this

In response to ski6 you said:

“This is a clear effort by Dr. Rudolph to thwart a perceived enemy of the district.”

What evidence do you have to prove this, it looks like the School District is only acknowledging that a settlement occurred AFTER it was discovered by a new organization. You said:

“Manny served the district for many years in the position of a SCEF. He speaks Spanish, understands the many challenges and provides outreach to the SES disadvantaged students. Also he is a wonderful person. The fact that the district is releasing an 'October election surprise' on Manny is shameful.”

I would say if “Manny” had been mistreated or discriminated against and the settlement was involving that kind of action, I would be in full agreement. But given the conditions of the settlement, it really appears to a good degree that some misconduct of some kind occurred. You said:

“Since Jose is not running for re-election, who will represent the 40%+ latinx families on our school board? We need a diverse school board to represent the diversity of Mountain View students and families. MVWSD uses intimidation to silence employees from speaking out about problems within the district. I applaud Manny's courage to run for school board. Go Manny!”

I agree with diversity being a good thing so that the community has proper representation. BUT, if it turns out one candidate had a serious issue so bad they settled that he resigned from the district and agreed to never work in the district again. A BETTER candidate would be a no brainer, but in this situation you’re just trying to make it look like discrimination.

Let’s solve this question, open up the records to the public so we can give “Manny” a fair chance if it turns out he did nothing wrong?

No one is entitled to be elected, they must earn it.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 6, 2020 at 9:53 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 9:53 am
71 people like this

It seems clear - that this settlement agreement (which MUST be disclosed when asked) was not placed in the usual ASK BY Public Records Act process. At least not before 8/24/2020 . I have the PRA request record document from the MVWSD covering till that date. NO MV Voice or Embarcadero Publishing requests (PA Daily News requests show up, NBC Bay Area requests show up)

Manny's previous job - was being downsized by Rudolph. The community concerned with his services strongly protested the elimination of those jobs, and Manny's position in particular! Voice covered that. The MVWSD spends (latest data Ed-Data) 1% more on GENERAL ADMINISTRATION that the state elementary average (7% -6%) and 3% less (5% - 8%) than the average on PUPIL SERVICES. A FLIP of More Admin. than Manny type positions (6% to 8% is the usual "average" not MVWSD's 7% to 5%).

This is the Public Policy that the incumbent Board members support (Blakely Yes)

See Ed-Data Financial page. General Fund Expenditures by Activity, Function Codes 3000-3999 and 7000-7999 respectively.
Web Link


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 6, 2020 at 3:35 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 3:35 pm
63 people like this

Trustee/Candidate Blakely was a party to approving the settlement agreement in January as part of her duties as Trustee. Her participation would have included Closed Session and participation in the vote.

The Minutes of the MVWSD for January shows two Closed Sessions, and no "reported out" public announcement of Public Employee Discipline/ Discipline/ Release results. In other words - clear violation of the Brown Act since there was an "action of the Board" and there was a specific cost. (there is some Code language that might delay this - if the signing occurred in a certain order - but it is to be announced when it comes back for final approval). See clause 10 of the Settlement; "approval and ratification by the District's Governing Board"

This action of the Board occurred before the 9 month statute of limitations for Brown Act Complaints! (more than "9 months"). Got away with more OPACITY!

If Manny somehow is elected - I'll be glad to help him with his legal bills to Claim His Right. Hey - I'm already fighting Rudolph on another legal case (Brown Act). And if Biden is elected to presidency, I'll help with his legal bills!


Middle S Parent
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Oct 6, 2020 at 4:32 pm
Middle S Parent, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 4:32 pm
21 people like this

@Steven Goldstein
Are you really this naïve or are you a shill for the district?

How do you think the MV Voice found out about this? Of course, it was leaked by the District!

You say: But given the conditions of the settlement, it really appears to a good degree that some misconduct of some kind occurred."

WHY? If Manny had really engaged in some terrible activities the District never would have settled. They have shown a willingness to spend HUGE amounts of money on legal fees and easily could have fought this out. The fact they settled tells me that they were probably just harrassing Manny and that he probably would have won.

You want to see open records? How about records related to the Principals who were all replaced two years ago?

And how are those replacements doing? Let's see, one took a salary for a year and then left before the school he was supposed to lead opened. Two others have also left. Great choices there!


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 6, 2020 at 5:07 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 5:07 pm
39 people like this

In response to Middle S Parent you said:

“Are you really this naïve or are you a shill for the district?”

Neither, you have not demonstrated any unbiased proof of an “intentional” leak, you said:

“How do you think the MV Voice found out about this? Of course, it was leaked by the District!”

No it was public record, it was just that it was uncovered at an inconvenient time for this candidate. You said:

“You say: But given the conditions of the settlement, it really appears to a good degree that some misconduct of some kind occurred."

WHY? If Manny had really engaged in some terrible activities the District never would have settled. They have shown a willingness to spend HUGE amounts of money on legal fees and easily could have fought this out. The fact they settled tells me that they were probably just harrassing Manny and that he probably would have won.”

The district would have BURNED that public money and you know that. You also KNOW that Manny would not have AGREED to this settlement unless there was SOMETHING that made is NEGOTIATING position rather weak. You said:

“You want to see open records? How about records related to the Principals who were all replaced two years ago?”

The principals you bring up had no “AGREEMENTS” signed. In Miller resigned for her family and wanted to relocate to the East Coast. Higgins was hired to work at another school in Redwood City. That fact is found in the MV Voice article found here (Web Link) The Mercury News reported that the district removed four principals with no reason for it in the story “ Mountain View: Parents stunned and angry over removal of four principals “ (Web Link). I agree that the records should be released for that situation.

HOWEVER ALL OF THEM WERE OFFERED CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT. NONE WERE CLASSIFIED AS “NO HIRE” A major difference compared to Manny. You said:

“And how are those replacements doing? Let's see, one took a salary for a year and then left before the school he was supposed to lead opened. Two others have also left. Great choices there!”

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE HERE, THE VOTERS SHOULD KNOW WHETHER THE CANDIDATE WAS BARRED FROM EMPLOYMENT IN THE SCHOOLS HE IS TRYING TO ADMINISTER IF ELECTED.


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Oct 6, 2020 at 8:21 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 8:21 pm
29 people like this

Well Steven. Candidate Velasco is barred from employment by the district under the settlement agreement linked to the article. That term of the agreement may not apply to serving on the school board and may be invalid under the statute (previously a bill) cited by a poster above. But the question is WHY he was targeted. What was and is it about? There is no confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement. The candidate is free to explain - as far as the agreement provides. If he wonders about his right to speak out, he might do something the settlement agreement suggests be done before signing: consult an attorney. But don't call me. And hurry up. 5th place in a race for 3 seats will not get a seat on the school board.


ski6
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 6, 2020 at 11:05 pm
ski6, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 11:05 pm
15 people like this

Steven Goldstein: you don't have a history of commenting/following school board issues. With all due respect, can you please limit your commentary to issues you follow and have direct knowledge of? It is o.k. if you don't share your opinion on literally every local Mountain View issue. Really. The sky is not going to fall. Let others in the city debate issues that they are closer to. We will do the same for you.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 6, 2020 at 11:57 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2020 at 11:57 pm
41 people like this

In response to ski6 you said:

“Steven Goldstein: you don't have a history of commenting/following school board issues. With all due respect, can you please limit your commentary to issues you follow and have direct knowledge of?”

Actually, even though I currently work in IT Security, my first learning track was Occupational Therapy. And I studied and showed excellence in the area of Pediatric and Learning studies. I however I was born with a neurological disorder that practically made it impossible for me to be a psychosocial therapist. Thus, I don’t work in that area. BUT that training gives me insight in how education, and more specifically how special education best practices should be applied. You should not throw out personal attacks like this. So when you say:

“It is o.k. if you don't share your opinion on literally every local Mountain View issue. Really.”

However, if people try to make any arguable claim that can be easily disproven, I have a social duty to simply clarify it. You said:

“The sky is not going to fall. Let others in the city debate issues that they are closer to. We will do the same for you.”

That almost sounds like you want to “censor” my speech, I NEVER imply or tell anyone they do not have the right to express themselves. In fact, I encourage it, especially you.

BUT you consent to having a dialog when you post here, and can’t you see I am trying to be providing constructive conversation.

Why not stick to the subject?


Middle S Parent
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Oct 7, 2020 at 2:30 pm
Middle S Parent, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 2:30 pm
18 people like this

@Steven Goldstein

You said: You also KNOW that Manny would not have AGREED to this settlement unless there was SOMETHING that made is NEGOTIATING position rather weak.

He received a substantial $ settlement. Perhaps that was all he wanted at the time?

You said: HOWEVER ALL OF THEM WERE OFFERED CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT. NONE WERE CLASSIFIED AS “NO HIRE” A major difference compared to Manny.

The principals (at least most of them) had tenure dating from their time as teachers within the district. This meant that the district HAD TO offer them continued employment.

You might want to really think about only posting when you have some knowledge of the situation. The same goes for your unsubstantiated assumption that Manny "must of" done something wrong. And that this issue as a "public record" "was uncovered at an inconvenient time for this candidate".

There are many things that must be disclosed upon a public records request, but are not normally released. For example, you can ask for all of Rudolph's emails in which he used the phrase "let's get rid of Manny he is making me look bad". (There may not be any. This is just an example.) These will then be made available to you (barring an exception to the requirement for release). Note that Rudolph's emails are not normally posted anywhere for you to see.

It is NO COINCIDENCE that this information came to light now. The District is fighting dirty!


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 7, 2020 at 2:59 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 2:59 pm
43 people like this

In response to Middle S Parent you said:

“You said: You also KNOW that Manny would not have AGREED to this settlement unless there was SOMETHING that made is NEGOTIATING position rather weak.

He received a substantial $ settlement. Perhaps that was all he wanted at the time?”

Please define SUBSTANTIAL? $37,000 is less than half a years possible salary. What would be defined as SUBSTANTIAL would be at least 1 years salary or 2 years. No that statement is so illogical, I cannot believe it. You said:

“You said: HOWEVER ALL OF THEM WERE OFFERED CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT. NONE WERE CLASSIFIED AS “NO HIRE” A major difference compared to Manny.

The principals (at least most of them) had tenure dating from their time as teachers within the district. This meant that the district HAD TO offer them continued employment.”

Are you saying than Manny never EARNED tenure? How long did he do this kind of work? I would like to see his resume. Oh he doesn’t seem to publish it. To me you are just trying to distract from the fact that something went wrong with Manny’s conduct, which resulted in him probably being told, either resign or your fired. You said:

“You might want to really think about only posting when you have some knowledge of the situation. The same goes for your unsubstantiated assumption that Manny "must of" done something wrong. And that this issue as a "public record" "was uncovered at an inconvenient time for this candidate".”

I admit I don’t have much knowledge, but your claim that Manny was given some kind of GIFT for good services is highly illogical. Less than $40,000 in a settlement seems almost pathetic, whoever represented him legally must not have had good cause for better. You said:

“There are many things that must be disclosed upon a public records request, but are not normally released. For example, you can ask for all of Rudolph's emails in which he used the phrase "let's get rid of Manny he is making me look bad". (There may not be any. This is just an example.) These will then be made available to you (barring an exception to the requirement for release). Note that Rudolph's emails are not normally posted anywhere for you to see.”

This just sounds like your trying to put someone who is not running for any office into the picture. Manny set himself up for this kind of situation by trying to be clever and work around the problem he caused to return to work, and in effect become the boss of the people he was working under. If you don’t want this kind of news to become newsworthy, never try a stunt like this.


ski6
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 7, 2020 at 11:12 pm
ski6, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2020 at 11:12 pm
11 people like this

Thanks for all your helpful commentary Steven Goldstein. Keep it coming.

I actually think the district's October surprise attempt on Manny will help him win election to MVWSD. I'm betting the teachers would LOVE to see Manny be the BOSS of Ayinde! Poetic Justice


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 1:25 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 1:25 am
23 people like this

Some of the parents in this town are really something!

They would rather elect someone to such an important role involving students:
1. who was fired from his union job (no easy feat) and
2. barred from entering the schools (haven't seen that one before with other terminations).
3. won't explain his side even though the voice asked him to and he is free to do so.

Are we that desperate!?!

And apparently its all an "october surprise" by the district who "leaked" this to the Voice. I love all the annonymous accusations being made with no evidence.

No wonder Trump won the last election. When you have such discerning electors like these.

Hey - I have a great idea to for awesome governing trio: let's elect the guy (velasco) whose is banned from our school campuses, and the guy who bailed on his board seat mid-way (Chiang) in order to recall the 3rd genius (Nelson) who is offering to pay legal fees for folks to sue the district (whose bill will be paid by us the taxpayers.)

Love it! Keep it coming, folks.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 1:39 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 1:39 am
25 people like this

BTW, to the quesiton above: Manny was with district 14 years, so he earned tenure. He Must have done something right to be fired from a union job with tenure and barred from campuses. The perfect person to run the schools! He can bring Chiang, his big defender, with him.

Along with Nelson, Chiang is another awesome character in this town - based on his daily obsessive cray-cray rants all over Facebook. Something is not quite right with that one...The dude is TRIGGERED! Exactly the kind of stable genius leadership our kids need.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 1:50 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 1:50 am
20 people like this

Hey ski6

the Latinx communities deserve a better representation than someone who was fired from their job and banned from their kid's schools. they have some standards, too. just say'in.


LongResident
Registered user
another community
on Oct 8, 2020 at 3:02 am
LongResident, another community
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 3:02 am
19 people like this

I don't see how it can not be a slur on the district rather than Manny that this happened. If he really did something wrong, then the district should have given him the hearing he wanted, at the very least. They are the ones who wanted to cover it up. This would be illegal if there was really any serious issue with the district employee. It has to be a trumped up charge. Something like he badmouthed the superintendent maybe so called "insubordination."

So he agreed to it possibly because of the tiny settlement and the fact that he wanted to resign to run for trustee anyway. He abided by the deal to keep it confidential and the district obviously intentionally leaked it by tipping off a reporter to look into it. I'm afraid it could be one of his fellow candidates who did this. Very bad.

I say elect the guy, and then have a full airing of the crap the district was trying to pull. Likely this wouldn't be the only thing.

Lets find out! Vote for Manny!


Name hidden
Sylvan Park

Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 8:15 am
Name hidden, Sylvan Park

Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 8:15 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:10 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:10 am
18 people like this


@LongResident

You say:

"the district obviously intentionally leaked it by tipping off a reporter to look into it. I'm afraid it could be one of his fellow candidates who did this. Very bad."

Seriously? Do you have any proof or evidence for your lovely conspiracy theories?

QAnon much?!?

Like I said when you have discerning minds like these voting, who needs Trumpers!


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:16 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:16 am
20 people like this

@longtime resident says: "Lets find out! Vote for Manny!"

Brilliant. Let's vote to put the guy in charge of schools who was fired and banned from those same schools to FIND OUT WHY he was fired and banned.

(And then if something bad comes up, ooops we are out of luck...he has another 3.5 years on the board!)

Any more golden nuggets of logic?


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:24 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:24 am
22 people like this

In any case, I doubt Manny will win after this bombshell article.

His competitor in the race, Chris Chaing, is all over Facebook posting this article, so now even more people know about that he was fired/banned. Lol.

I would have liked to have seen Manny be transparent and disclose this on his own before the election rather than the newspaper having to dig it out - especially since he was free to talk. Manny even declined to provide an explanation when the newspaper asked him - the *perfect opportunity* for him to explain what happened and clear his name.

Not *exactly a model of transparency* that we should want on such an important position over our kids. Yikes!


Jenny
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Oct 8, 2020 at 10:47 am
Jenny, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 10:47 am
25 people like this

I am disappointed by the implicit threat the district is making in saying they would consider legal action if Manny Velasco is one of the 3 people elected to the board in November.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 11:34 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 11:34 am
17 people like this

why doesn't manny just come out and say his piece? he was asked by voice, he is a member of several FB forums. he can clear this up in one minute so the voters know who exactly they are voting for! I don't get it!!

i for one am glad that the district folks are standing for their rights and quite possibly protecting the kids and staff, which is what we hired them to do. if manny has nothing to hide then he would either come clean now, or welcome his day in court to clear his name and get his rightful seat on the board (should he win the case). I trust the district and the legal process rather than someone who was fired/banned and then didn't disclose it while running for elected position and won't come clean even though many opportunities have presented themselves. i think our kids deserve better than this circus.

Again, I just don't get it. Maybe its just me.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 8, 2020 at 11:50 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 11:50 am
34 people like this

I for one am against ANY SECRET SETTLEMENTS AT ALL.

All SETTLEMENTS should be public, ALL evidence prior to the SETTLEMENT must be PUBLIC.

The people are CUSTOMERS of any product or service, and if any SUPPLIER does anything illegal the BUYERS have a RIGHT to know about it.

That being said, he worked for 14 years here, but I cannot get proof of TENURE. However, if he did have TENURE and he resigned, something REALLY bad may have happened. For example it could be that he REFUSED to wear a MASK given COVID. This alone would be grounds for his firing even if he had TENURE because he violated a PUBLIC HEALTH order?


Why not just make the entire record public?


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 12:22 pm
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 12:22 pm
20 people like this

Well that is the current law of the land. If we want MVWSD to disclose his all private details about his dismissal, then we better get the state to change the law first. Otherwise the district could be in hot water and sued by, quite ironically, Manny!! Taxpayers will have to foot that bill. They already footed the $35K bill to pay him rest of his remaining salary. And in return, he agreed not to set foot on schools (with some exceptions I guess). And I guess he thought it would be a good idea to turn around and try to govern the same schools that is he barred from. And rather conveniently decided to not share that rather important info with the voters until a reporter dug it up?? And people think this is somehow OK?!?


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 8, 2020 at 1:17 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 1:17 pm
11 people like this

MV you are exactly on the right track about the law - and public employee file disclosure - which ANY school district must follow. Otherwise - Here Come The Judge! Dr. Rudolph and the Board must also follow one of the laws on Open & Public government., The Brown Act.

Rather than argue with Dr. Rudolph / Board on this matter, the case about their actions is now in the courts, and eventually Here Come The Judge! A Judge will decide the law, not Dr. Rudolph's opinion of the law.

Manny doesn't have a right to be elected, but if elected, can Dr. Rudolph and the Board prevent him from taking office? (sure)


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 5:31 pm
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 5:31 pm
14 people like this

@jenny
you say: "I am disappointed by the implicit threat the district is making in saying they would consider legal action if Manny Velasco is one of the 3 people elected to the board in November."

I say: Well, I am disappointed that Manny did something so apparently wrong that he is barred from the schools. And nothing implicit about this one, as he actually signed an agreement agreeing to as much! Call me crazy, but people who are totally innocent don't sign such types of contracts!!

The district is protecting its students and staff and we should take the side of the folks who are actually taking the heat to protect our community than the side of the guy who did something wrong enough to warrant being fired and banned from MV schools. Full stop.

Maybe he is really good with kids, etc., as his fans say, but that does not mean he couldn't have done something very wrong. Or that we should hand over so much power in our schools. Especially when he hid it from everyone. When was he going to tell folks that he can't enter our schools? After he won the board seat? "Yea, oops, guys, I forgot to disclose a small, teeny-weeny detail" And then the taxpayer funded lawsuit would start - in the middle of covid where we really need everyone to keep eye on the ball.

And then we would be back to the same dysfunctional board that we saw a few years ago with Chris Chiang and good 'ol Nelson...Someone's quitting, someone's supposedly getting recalled, yelling and screaming at the board meetings, teachers are quitting in droves and striking, Sup't is getting fired with a big payout ($200K) in a confidential document which wouldn't disclose any details - and ya folks that was approved by none other than Chiang and Nelson (I think - correct me if wrong). And now they are back demanind the current board to do exactly the opposite of what they did when were on the board. Can't make this stuff up.

Our kids need us to get our s--t together and stop acting like gullible morons.


Christopher Chiang
Registered user
North Bayshore
on Oct 8, 2020 at 6:34 pm
Christopher Chiang, North Bayshore
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 6:34 pm
14 people like this

@MV 14 principals for a district of 11 schools over the last two years.
Web Link

$5 million increase in professional service/consultant spending over the last four years. Web Link

I agree, the children deserve more.

No one wants to bring back the chaos of the past. Yet, there was good work done too. We back then canceled the food contract with Sodexo, we built fresh prep kitchens and hired a district chef. We started the 1-1 laptop program in the middle schools. We started the move toward PBL with the superintendent, principals, and teachers visiting top PBL schools to bring back best practices. We prioritized district support for outdoor education like Yosemite and Walden West. We led the region in expanding preschools/preK. We modeled transparency by being the first district in the region to stream meetings online and created community committees to ensure early community input in construction. We funded the building of the performing arts centers by de-prioritizing the building of a new district office.

My resignation is fair to critique, it was a mistake, I own that, but the past superintendent was not fired, he resigned. He earned every penny of severance dedicating his career to MVWSD. The legal fees alone that he saved the district saved the taxpayers more than his severance. Do you know how much the district spends now on legal fees? The past superintendent never got a 14% raise or million dollar home loan. Consider that the price of the past superintendent's severance is equal to what the current board spent to install new boardroom audio-visual equipment and unknown more on new boardroom furniture. Web Link

Whoever one votes for, yes, the children deserve better.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2020 at 7:04 pm
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 7:04 pm
15 people like this

@ Chris Chiang,

So if someone quits, you just hand them a big fat check that instead of could have gone to students?!? I would love to have that job.

And he quit, because...let me guess... the dysfunction you couldn't manage to reign in and good 'ol Nelson foaming at the mouth? If you both had exercised better leadership, maybe he wouldn't have quit! Since you say he was so great, then you should have tried harder to save him from the past toxic board environment.

But the bigger point is that the severance package was all sealed with no details revealed to the public, even when there was community outrage over it. So AT THAT time, you were fine with sealed personnel records and not sharing details with the taxpayers and parents, but here you are screaming for the opposite. Its the blatant hypocrisy I'm pointing out more than anything else.

Yes, you did do good on the board. Over 3 years, I would hope that you would some successes to tout. If you gonna tout the successes, you gotta own the massive failures: the dysfunction, the lack of ability to control the dysfunction, the high teacher turnover and strike. Hey, not one is perfect, right? Not you, not Rudolph. And anyhow, you guys hired him, right? Let's not forget that. So if he sucks so bad, then its ON YOU and Nelson for not finding a better fit or setting him up for success.

You say you don't want to bring back the chaos of the past, but you are well on your way to doing it already by criticizing *every thing* the district and board do and getting in Facebook rants and fights with practically everybody - including the parents, who keep telling you to knock it off and are literally begging you stop stirring up the pot for usually no good reason and spreading animosity. I don't see ANY OTHER candidate doing that. Speaks volumes!!!

And right now, you seem to be all about poor Manny rather than the tough spot he has put everyone in and his total lack of transparency with the public.

BTW, Right now, a lot less teacher turnover also means a LOT of money saved and better quality education for the kids. So maybe Rudolph also earned his raise, using your logic.

And no can do on your logic that equates a gift of $207K for your employee who quit and was never going to come back versus money spent on capital equipment that will last a long time and stay with district, instead of walking away with the money.


Nora S.
Registered user
Rex Manor
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:49 pm
Nora S., Rex Manor
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:49 pm
15 people like this

It is important to clarify that whatever actions are at the root of the dispute between Velasco and the District, they clearly were not criminal, or the District would have pursued criminal charges instead of this voluntary settlement. Velasco is "banned" from the school grounds simply because he signed a contract agreeing to this measure in exchange for other benefits. So speculating that he did something "wrong" is irresponsible. What is clear is that he did something that the District didn't like.


Gary Wesley
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:57 pm
Gary Wesley, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 9:57 pm
16 people like this

The settlement agreement he signed does not prohibit Mr. Velasco from explaining his conflict with the District or Superintendent that lead to his ouster. He did not even submit a candidate statement for inclusion in the county voter guide. The other 4 candidates have statements in the voter guide. Three of them will be elected.


ski6
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 8, 2020 at 10:54 pm
ski6, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 10:54 pm
3 people like this



ski6
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 8, 2020 at 11:05 pm
ski6, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 11:05 pm
11 people like this

Chris Chang. The parents in MVWSD support you. Enough is enough with the current board. Thank you for speaking the truth. you are doing a great service by being a voice for the parents in this district. Thanks for your courage in standing up to those that shame anyone offering a comment that is not in complete support of MVWSD.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 8, 2020 at 11:31 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 8, 2020 at 11:31 pm
28 people like this

In response to Nora S. you said:

“It is important to clarify that whatever actions are at the root of the dispute between Velasco and the District, they clearly were not criminal, or the District would have pursued criminal charges instead of this voluntary settlement.”

Nora, believe me when I say that a persons conduct may not be criminal, but so intolerable regarding either not complying with the code of conduct, or other employment policies, that you wind up with a “lifetime” agreement to never work for the school system locally again.

I can only imagine what questions he gets when he gets a job interview now. You said:

“Velasco is "banned" from the school grounds simply because he signed a contract agreeing to this measure in exchange for other benefits. So speculating that he did something "wrong" is irresponsible.”

This is where you are not correct, unless Manny discloses the reason WHY he agreed to this agreement. To me you are not making any sense regarding your logic here. You said:

“What is clear is that he did something that the District didn't like.”

But until it is disclosed by Manny, we have good cause to suspect it was something serious. Maybe he was caught not performing up to par regarding his Special Education duties? I am familiar with Special Education because I WAS a Special Education Student, I was born with a severe neurological condition. I know that it can be very damaging to a student if a Special Education Teacher was not performing their work up to the standards of care. To me, it would clearly be an indication that he would not be qualified to help “ADMINISTER” an educational district or school.

Manny, if you want to clear up this situation, just come clean. If you didn't do anything wrong, this will provide us with good cause to elect you.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:31 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:31 am
14 people like this

Agree with the commenter above. If it wasn't anything serious, why hasn't the candidate in all this time, given so many chances, explained the parent community what happened?


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:37 am
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:37 am
14 people like this

Wait, what!?

Manny has not submitted a candidate statement like all of the other candidates?

I also haven't heard much (actually anything) from him on any other forum? Like social media forums, meet and greet zoom calls like the other candidates running. Has anyone else?

I also haven't seen one of those postcards from him on my doorstep. Has anyone else?

Honestly, that does make my spidey senses go up about his seriousness and sincerity. Is he pulling a Kanye on us? Or just mad at getting fired and this his was of sticking it to everyone?


MVWSD Parent
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2020 at 8:59 am
MVWSD Parent, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 8:59 am
13 people like this

@ski6: Please do not claim to speak for MVWSD parents. You do not speak for me. There are other candidates who unlike Mr. Chiang, actually ARE MVWSD parents (or were until recently), want our schools to be better, and understand how to get things done in a way more constructive manner. Reach out. Talk to them. You might be surprised.


Cfrink
Registered user
Willowgate
on Oct 9, 2020 at 9:46 am
Cfrink, Willowgate
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 9:46 am
8 people like this

I’m just not sure people in this group understand what the Board of Trustees does. No where in this area, does a person get fired from their job, and then be invited to serve on the Board of Directors for the same company. It doesn’t happen. The facts are that we do not discuss personnel and disciplinary records for public employees here. So, we can’t know why this person was fired. But people don’t get fired from union jobs for petty schemes. It’s a pretty serious process that involves laws and arbitration, with all the facts out in the open (behind closed doors) for the process to be concluded. That means the District had serious concerns about the employee’s actions for one reason or another which were justified. The fact that he received the remainder of his salary and only that spells some of that out. In this state, teachers can’t just walk off during the school year, so we know he was forced to leave. But they also have protections such as salary compensation for the remainder of the school year as well, built into their contracts, even when they get fired for cause, hence the payment.

We have the opportunity to put three people on the Board who have or have had kids in our schools, who are focused on the issues at hand, one of whom is an active member of the LatinX community and has been a principal and these three candidates have all been involved in positive ways to support our school community.

We’ve seen what a dysfunctional board looks like. We don’t need to repeat this experience because our kids will suffer. Let’s stay focused and keep the Board on the right track. Mr. Velasco was fired and needs to start over...somewhere else. I’m certain he’s a fine man, who has talents to share. But when you get fired from your job, you don’t stick around to be an advisor in that same system. You move on. That’s what we should do here. That’s best for Mr. Velasco, and the District.


LongResident
Registered user
another community
on Oct 9, 2020 at 2:44 pm
LongResident, another community
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 2:44 pm
12 people like this

It's too convenient for Rudolph that this guy agreed to the
settlement. It was explained that Manny was LAID OFF as opposed
to being fired. He was the Union President. One has to
wonder whether the layoffs of those in that position were targeted
at eliminating the union president. The guy worked for 12 years
in the district and earned a lot of support. Rudolph comes along
and wants to get rid of the union president. How would he go about it?
Worse still, the Union President has admitted he plans to run for the
School Board BEFORE the agreement was signed.

A big reason why Manny might not want to reveal what happened is that
he could have cause for action with the NRLB as well as the legal
remedies for an ordinary employment law violation, being that he was
the union president.

In this case, I think these comments are wrong here in saying that
this is a slur against Manny. I have no doubt that details will come out
post election, whether or not he wins.


LongResident
Registered user
another community
on Oct 9, 2020 at 2:47 pm
LongResident, another community
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 2:47 pm
10 people like this

That should be NLRB up there. Sorry.

In fact, it may be mentioning his rights under union organizing rules that caused Rudolph to turn the layoff into a firing and paying Manny hush money. Why on earth
would the district pay Manny if the district had not done something wrong and wanted to keep it quiet? You might speculate Manny possibly contributed but why would the district seek to hush that up? Something is fishy.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:08 pm
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:08 pm
15 people like this

@LongResident

Let's not get into unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories here about "hush money". This is not Fox News.

If you have some proof of this being "hush money" versus just paying out the rest of the contract as per union rules or some such thing, then do provide here.

The Sup't does not make this decision unilaterally. He has a whole team that discusses this probably, in consultation with the union, and then it is presented to the 5 independent board members chosen by the public for final sign-off. I trust all these different bodies' judgement before I trust some anonymous person on the internet spreading rumors about hush money.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:26 pm
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:26 pm
20 people like this

@LongResident

You say: "Worse still, the Union President has admitted he plans to run for the School Board BEFORE the agreement was signed."

My question: If he planned to run for school board, then why did he sign a contract barring him from entering schools? He had the free will and should NOT have signed it.

You say: "A big reason why Manny might not want to reveal what happened is that he could have cause for action with the NRLB as well as the legal remedies for an ordinary employment law violation, being that he was
the union president."

My question: So Manny is not explaining to the public what happened (so they can make an informed decision) because he wants to pursue legal action? So, in another words, he is already planning to purse legal action against a district on whose governing board he wants to sit on? If so, wow!! His intentions are worse than I thought.

You say: "I have no doubt that details will come out post election, whether or not he wins."

My question: Why should the details come out after election? Why can't he just share the details now, as he is free to do so? Can we get some transparency for god's sake from the candidate already?!? Or is it either he wins the election or he sues the district?!?

This could not come at a better time. People like these and those 2 former trustees who are pushing his case suck up all the air in the room. At a time when the district, board and everyone else should be FOCUSED WITH REOPENING SCHOOLS AND STUDENT AND TEACHER SAFETY!! Remember that?

BTW, Do you speak to and for Manny? You act like you know a lot about him. If so, you oughta let him know that you are just making him look worse. He should grow up just speak for himself instead of thru anonymous posters. Not exactly trustee material, IMHO.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:39 pm
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 7:39 pm
25 people like this

@ski6:

You do not speak for MVWSD parents so please don't claim to do so. Chris Chiang "is not the voice for the parents" in MVWSD parents since he actually isn't an MVWSD parent!! AND abandoned them when they needed him the most.

And don't even get me started on 'ol Nelson.

All 3 of these people are stirring up trouble at a time when funds, energy, time and cool minds need to be focused on reopening and covid safety. Lives are literally on the line. Get over yourselves and let the grown ups lead.


MV
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 9, 2020 at 8:12 pm
MV , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 8:12 pm
22 people like this

@longresident: You say "something is fishy"??

Yea I would say something is fishy.

Manny has not:
- submitted a statement candidate statement in the county voter guide 
- has never participated in the MV Moms FB forum among other groups as he was asked to do by the parents. all other candidates have taken the time and energy to answer multiple questions from parents and explained their positions in detail.
- Not sent out any mailers, emails, meet/greets, almost nothing.
- no website? i have searched and searched on googleand nothing is coming up for a website stating any policy statements, his view and plans. (unless i'm wrong - if anyone has a webpage, please do share). all other candidates for all other district elections in MtV and surrounding areas have them. ALL!!!
- No linkedin resume? so we can see his professional qualifications. atleast that i could find. could someone share if it exists and i will stand corrected with any of the above.

Yea, I would say something is "fishy" about this guy's candidacy.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 9, 2020 at 9:03 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 9, 2020 at 9:03 pm
19 people like this

In response to MV,

OMG I am in AWE, you laid out such a great LOGICAL argument.

I have only one thing I can say about you:

"WE'RE NOT WORTHY!" (Waynes World)

video (Web Link)


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 12, 2020 at 11:53 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 12, 2020 at 11:53 pm
29 people like this

OMG,

Manny doesn't even have a college degree?

He had no training in SPECIAL EDUCATION? He has no training in MENTAL HEALTH?

You can see this information in the MV Voice article titled "Five candidates compete in race for the Mountain View Whisman School District board
" found here ((Web Link))

No wonder you can't find his resume anywhere?

Doesn't he have any CERTIFICATIONS for performing his work?

No wonder he was let go, he didn't have the qualifications to perform that job. The School systems had no choice, because he was not qualified to do that work. How he got the job makes me curious?

So OK he DIDN'T do anything wrong, BUT he definitely was REQURED to be let go. The School System could not continue to use him when if he DID cause ANY kind of problems, no matter how small, the School System would not have ANY legal defense.

He was a walking LAWSUIT waiting to happen, I bet he was told he needed to get a college degree or a certification within a period of time, and was probably going to get reimbursed for it under Federal Loan Forgiveness, but he didn't take any action.

To me, it was clearly his own responsibility he got where he wound up.

He is not QUALIFIED to be in the School Administrative staff.


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Oct 13, 2020 at 10:02 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Oct 13, 2020 at 10:02 am
34 people like this

Interesting Steven. But I don't know what formal education or certificates were required. He was not a teacher. And we don't know why he faced discipline or why he resigned. Manny Velasco has no chance of being elected - in this election. But what about Christopher Chiang? He is the former trustee attacked by current trustee Tamara Wilson for providing unspecified "misinformation" somewhere else online. A poster refers to Facebook. Some people think the current board goes along to get along with the superintendent and works with the superintendent as a "team" and not as real representatives of the public - including parents. A trustee who will raise questions and keep the public informed and involved could be useful. Could Christopher Chiang fill such a role?


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2020 at 10:38 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 13, 2020 at 10:38 am
29 people like this

In response to Gary you said:

“Interesting Steven. But I don't know what formal education or certificates were required. He was not a teacher.”

Even as a Special Education Assistant, his work requires at least a certification due to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act. In order to follow and document the treatment of a Individualized Education Program, If he did not have this qualification, the Federal and State funding would be threatened. IEP’s cannot be created, nor progress note cannot be written without a qualified professional. You said:

“And we don't know why he faced discipline or why he resigned.”

In this case disciplinary actin was not the cause, it was the required qualifications he was needing that forced the School Administration to let him go. Now it can be defined as Manny not acquiruing the necessary qualification that got him forced to resign, and not “misconduct” per se. You said:

“Manny Velasco has no chance of being elected - in this election. But what about Christopher Chiang? He is the former trustee attacked by current trustee Tamara Wilson for providing unspecified "misinformation" somewhere else online.”

I agree that the people can disagree with each other, and using misinformation in social networks is good cause not to vote for one candidate. You said:

“A poster refers to Facebook. Some people think the current board goes along to get along with the superintendent and works with the superintendent as a "team" and not as real representatives of the public - including parents. A trustee who will raise questions and keep the public informed and involved could be useful. Could Christopher Chiang fill such a role?”

Dissent is allowed, Christopher Chiang at least has a B.A and a M.A but does not try to do work outside his qualifications. Granted he is a pro teacher union type, but that again doesn’t disqualify him to be a School Administrator.

But Manny is clearly out of his element when it comes to his qualifications. My Human Resources Management training would have told me he should never worked in special education because he doesn’t have the training.


Middle S Parent
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Oct 13, 2020 at 2:32 pm
Middle S Parent, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Oct 13, 2020 at 2:32 pm
5 people like this

@Steven Goldstein

Amazing that you continue to post with completely unfounded assertions regarding Manny's clarifications to work for the district. How do you know he doesn't have proper certifications? And if he doesn't, it would be the District's fault for hiring him, not his!

Perhaps you should try applying to work at the District where you can put your "Human Resources Management training" to "good" use.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2020 at 2:47 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 13, 2020 at 2:47 pm
22 people like this

In response to Middle S Parent you said:

“Amazing that you continue to post with completely unfounded assertions regarding Manny's clarifications to work for the district. How do you know he doesn't have proper certifications?”

VERY SIMPLE ANSWER, he would have used it as a qualification to run for the Mountain View Whisman District position. It is VERY logical that if it is not disclosed it doesn’t exist. I remember the saying that is repeated on the Qualio website “If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen”. So far no documents exist. You said:

“And if he doesn't, it would be the District's fault for hiring him, not his!”

NOW that is a GOOD question. Here is a possible answer, not saying I can prove it but possible. Jose Gutierrez was a “BOARD” member of the system. Now he is running for the City Council. He was appointed there in 2008. Manny may have had some kind of protection from Jose regarding his employment. But when Jose decided to leave, then that protection disappeared.

I STRONGLY AGREE THAT THERE NEEDS MORE ACCOUNTABILITY WITH THE MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN DISTRICT.

BUT YOU CAN” T EXPECT ANY IMPROVEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY WITH SOMEONE LIKE MANNY THERE.

You said:

“Perhaps you should try applying to work at the District where you can put your "Human Resources Management training" to "good" use.”

Nice try, I am not running, and your personal swipes at me are no reasonable evidence that Manny is right for the job. You are just insulting others that don’t agree with you.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 14, 2020 at 3:16 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 14, 2020 at 3:16 pm
2 people like this

@MV and anyone else "claiming" that teaching force retention has Improved or Declined in the last 7 years. That is just a DAMN lie!

Go look up the statistics from the state AVERAGE TEACHING EXPERIENCE this is the average employment years - it is constant 8 years (at the resolution of one year)
It has been constant at 8 years from 2013 to 2018, the County metric is 10 years, it has also been constant.
STAFF page DEMOGRAPHIC pull down
link CDE/EdSource/FCMAT partmentship
Web Link


The new teacher retention rate has gone up, in 2019-20 because 10 more teachers than 2018-2019 got Tenure after 3 years and decided to stay.
Public Records Request response, MVWSD Letter dated July 14, 2020
"attained permanency in our district after 3 years of hire."
"*2018-19 - 25/49 = 51%
*2019-20 - 35/47 = 75%". 35 instead of 25 is ten more, 35/47 instead of 25/49 is 24% more

A ONE YEAR, 10 teacher difference.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 14, 2020 at 3:33 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 14, 2020 at 3:33 pm
1 person likes this

@CFrink - Who ets fired from their job (in Silicon Valley) and then gets invited back'?

Hey my man! You have not lived in This Valley long enough to have lived through Steve Jobs (CEO) / Apple / fired / Apple / Steve Jobs (CEO). And etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. It happens. Not just at Apple.

Or People Jump Ship (this is really, really local) Shockley Semiconductor Lab "traitorous eight." *
"generally agree that Shockley was a poor manager and businessman.[note 1] From early childhood he was prone to outbursts of unprovoked aggression, ... the atmosphere was unhealthy" *Wikipedia
Web Link


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Oct 14, 2020 at 6:18 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Oct 14, 2020 at 6:18 pm
1 person likes this

@MV" BTW, Right now, a lot less teacher turnover also means a LOT of money saved and better quality education for the kids. So maybe Rudolph also earned his raise, using your logic."

There is a Lot less teacher turnover (of 3 yr teachers getting Tenure) at the end of the 2020 school year than the year before (2018-19). 10 teachers @MV, 10 teachers with three years teaching experience in this district (where the Average Teaching Experience is 8 years).

Logic doesn't work when the data input is just plain wrong.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.