"A lot of these policies are 'stupid'". Wow, what a great defense - wonder where he got his degree. Sounds like a bully on the playground.

@mom: No, he is just being bluntly direct. It IS stupid to discourage people from speaking up any time it might make the leaders look bad. That just encourages waste and hiding from the truth. It is a VERY BAD IDEA (do you like that better?) to discourage dissent in government.

I guess that Mr. Scheer should have come to some of the meetings before he can make a personal decision. He may be "A prominent First Amendment lawyer and journalist", but he is not a Board member who needs to work with Steve Nelson.

Isn't Gary Wesley the one who continues to sue organizations for bond measures? Hmmmm. Well, thanks for your opinion, Mr. Wesley.

Mtn View Voice: Can't you now just let this go so the Board can get back to the business of helping our students? I am sure they would all (including Mr. Nelson) would appreciate that. Every single one of the Board members are there to help our kids.

I must refrain from discussing the merits of Mr. Scheer’s comments on the Code of Conduct that may or may not be revised in the future, but I feel compelled to share with the members of our community who have posted above, that the First Amendment Coalition is a very well respected organization that works commendably in defense of the free speech. Mr. Scheer, a graduate of Harvard Law School, is a legal expert, whose content I can’t here state a response, but his authority on the subject I do greatly respect.

Brown Act permits me to speak of past policies that have already passed. Regarding October 23, Resolution No. 1521. 10/13, Censure of Trustee Steven Nelson. I voted for this not to stop dissent. I voted for this because no board member should be able to threaten fellow employees without rebuke. It’s unfortunate that the censure has been framed as an attempt to stop anyone from criticizing the district. I hope Trustee Nelson will continue to criticize the district where he deems it appropriate, just as long as he does so in a professional manner. Trustees are leaders of this district with around 300 employees and 5,000 students. Belligerent speech that is tolerated when made by private citizen is not tolerable when made by leaders in workplace, let alone a place for teaching children.

Christopher Chiang
MVWSD School Board Trustee
The views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Mountain View Whisman School District or the school board.

Steven Nelson is not the first local public official to try to get his way by yelling, bad language, and generally being obnoxious but I hope he is the last. That said, I agree with Gary Wesley and Peter Scheer that the school board should not shrink from contrary opinions; it should welcome a healthy debate.

In a set of bylaws, drawing the line between obnoxious and healthy is hard to do.

The US Congress has shown clearly that debate can become vicious and destructive. I don't like that but when two widely opposed policies are strongly held it's not easy to maintain a courteous debate.

It sounds like they are Wheeler and Goldman are quoting from the Pirate Code, which are more like guidelines rather than strict codes. And like pirates these clowns will do anything to get there way in the end.

"she ultimately disagrees that the sections of the trustees code of conduct are stupid or set a bad precedent"

Of course she does because the district policy requires her to support the new code of conduct that the board passed either unanimously or by majority.

It is always unfortunate when adults need to be reminded of what constitutes professional, constructive behavior. Mr. Nelson's highly aggressive behavior with district staff is simply unacceptable. This is in no way a free speech issue; it is his responsibility to voice his disagreements over policies when he has them, as it is the duty of all board members. To shout, bully, and threaten employees is not a function of free speech, however. It is an abuse of power. That he was unwilling or unable to change his behavior when asked to do so several times means that a special policy now needs to be put in place to remind him and others of acceptable behavior. I am sorry that it was necessary, and also appreciate that the board did not back down on this.

As far as supporting policies one voted against: except in the most dire of circumstances, it is generally assumed that a democracy requires the minority to voice opposition, seek to persuade, and if the majority votes another way, to seek a constructive way of supporting the whole body, in order to work for the common good.

@Ron: if you read into my comment that I am supporting one side or the other, you are incorrect. Please reread my statement: I did not imply my position in the current debate at any point. My only observation was about the lawyer. Any implication was your own assumption.

I actually had this exact kind of run in with Steve myself before his election - he "assumed" that I was on one side of an issue that I had not even decided upon yet, and put me on the defensive. It did not make a good impression.

For the record, I encourage healthy discussion and debate in all matters. But above all, this is a school district - let's be good examples for our children.

Steve Nelson's behavior aside, I agree with the criticism of these rules. Do we expect our senators keep silent when they disagree with a law passed by others? Obviously, no. We expect them to continue to fight for what they believe is right. How would we ever get change if board member had to support all past decisions. It's an absurd idea. If the decisions of the board can't stand up to some public criticism by dissenting board members, they are probably weak decisions.

"According to [Goldman], encouraging "the expression of divergent opinions," while simultaneously asking that board members not speak out against board decisions is not contradictory." Sounds totally contradictory to me.

OK, one guy disagrees. Thanks for your comment. Anything else besides the criticism? OK then...Next! all people with opinions blart them out here.

"..to seek a constructive way of supporting the whole body, in order to work for the common good."

What a load of nonsense.

We don't live in a democracy, thank goodness. We are living in a republic.

If a board member thinks something is bad they can continue to think that (and act accordingly) as long as their constituents keep voting for them.

That's how our system of government works. The majority doesn't get to push the minority around. That's mob rule.

"Scheer, who has written for a number of prominent publications ... "

HuffingtonPost is not a prominent publication.

Scheer is another blow-hard who unable to distinguish the message from how the message is delivered. (You are free to express you opinion, but you don't have to be an ass about it.)

Steven, read Christopher's post above. It is a good example of how you have present an opinion without being a jerk about it.

As someone who supports free speech and use to be a paid member of the ACLU but I find Rules of Conduct very important. Rules while speaking to the public or a board must be followed. The idea is to be professional and polite.