Several people have told me that they are planning on voting for only one or two of them. I think the election should be determined that way anyway, it is to bad it isn''t set up that way.

Measuring support based on sign frequency puts Vlad in last place. Doesn't seem like there are two many people out there willing to post a Vlad sign.

Signs are not a predictor. Look how the votes turned out for Amanda.

Just remember:
Sangeth is an LASD parent who works in education as board member if several nonprofits.
Vladimir is an LASD parent involved with district committees and has lead the CACF financial oversight.
Tammy is a parent and board member instrumental in bringing peace to the community with the 5 year agreement

Martha is a BCS parent who authorized several million dollars of parent donated money, meant for facility improvements, toward starting several lawsuits against our schools.
John Swan and his wife, Linda Swan, are BCS parents and founders who were leaders of the no campaign against Measure E in an attempt to deprive our schools of much needed revenue.

Wow, I had heard Martha was a lead in approving use of BCS parent donated money to sue the district but didn't know that about John.

It's an easy search to see Swan was against Measure E at a time when the state was taking away needed funding and would compromise the operation of our schools. How can John Swan lie about supporting the LASD bond yet on principle not support a cheaper parcel tax? I will definitely not be voting for Swan and Martha as they continue to cover up these actions.

Web Link

Voters with kids in LASD schools are only about 20 percent of the voters in this election. With the BCS/LASD issue sort of settled for the next few years, most people are going to be looking for what is most important to them. People that are against the bond most likely won't be interested in voting for people that are in current LASD establishment, the same is true for those of us that would like to see a clear plan for spending the funds.

Then there are those that really want to make sure that the school in their neighborhood gets its share of the bond funds. Gardner might vote for Vlad and only for Vlad to insure that their choice for school board gets a rep on the board. Covington might only vote for Sangeth. Loyola parents will come out strong for Tammy. She has done a great job looking out for their interests.

Voters that do not have kids in LASD schools but are interested in preserving Parks might vote for the candidates that support preserving the parks, and the community center. People in this group would most likely not vote for Vlad because he is a big supporter of turning over Hillview to LASD.

Voters at the charter will most likely vote for both Martha and John. That's a lot of votes, as the charter is the biggest school. Most of them will not vote for a third candidate.

The one thing about Martha and John is that they both have been in this community for awhile and know quite a few people both of them have very stellar reputations and are know to be great fiscal managers. They also have had children in both LASD schools and at BCS, which many people feel is a much needed addition to the LASD board.

Judging by signs in laws, hardly anyone is supporting three candidates. Most signs are singles or doubles.
I drive all over town on a daily bases. I can think of only one instance in which I saw an LASD triple - Logan/Peruri/Ivanovic. It seems like most people are hedging their bets and only voting for one or two.

@ parent - interesting but I doubt most voters believe most of that mush. Too mony people are concerned that the bond will be wasted. Most people are looking to put some new people on the board. Many lasd parents actually want the bcs parents on the board, they think they will a better job standing up to special interests, like the unions. Also many parents are really interested in the bcs program and would like to see some collaboration.

@Tony, it's true. Martha oversaw use of parent donated funds, earmarked for BCS facility use, toward starting legal suits against LASD

From Martha's own election site: Web Link , "Bullis-Purissima Elementary School Foundation, current Treasurer and Board Member"

Court Declaration and Exhibits demonstrating use of the parent donated $5M site fund toward legal fees in suits against LASD. Web Link

@Tony, The Swan family wrote the ballot argument against Measure E. If the Swans can't get behind a simple parcel tax to cover a loss in state funding then I can't believe he is telling the truth about getting behind this bond. John is hiding his true priorities and will work to limit the funding that has made our schools great.

Proof: Web Link

Vladimir, Tammy, and Sangeeth are not hiding anything and have demonstrated countless steps in support and promoting our schools. Not hurting or taking away as Martha and John have done.

hmmmmm being the treasure does not make you the law suit instigator, it doesn't even make you the funder. LASD was actually the investigator of several of those lawsuits, lawsuits that were funded by all of us tax payers. If LASD had just followed the law, instead of trying to find new an better ways to twist it, it all would have been settled long ago. So many won't be voting for Tammy or Vlad because they were mess creators.

In any event, that argument is twisted at best. I doubt it is going to keep anyone from voting for Martha. The small number of people following that line of argument are most likely already going to cast one vote, and only one vote for either Tammy Vlad or Sangeth.

There may actually be many LASD parents that cast at least one vote for Swan or McClatchie. They both are focused on improving educational programs, either think that the status quo is very good. Many LASD parents are interested in improving LASD schools and that starts with trustees that are not in pocket of the teachers unions.

Darn spell checker….

LASD was the instigator. not investigator. Someone should have been investigating them.

The Swans and many other BCS families did not support measure E. The reason that they did support it is simple:

LASD collects parcel taxes from every resident of the district but does not share them with the public school students at BCS. In fact every student at BCS receives about $5000 less from the tax payers than do students at LASD schools.

BCS parents pay parcel taxes every year and receive no benefit. Of course they were against it and worked hard to try and defeat it. I don't think the same is true with bond. Many BCS parents support the bond. Martha McClatchie is campaigning for it.

"Vladimir, Tammy, and Sangeeth are not hiding anything and have demonstrated countless steps in support and promoting our schools. Not hurting or taking away as Martha and John have done."

HA HA HA……

So funny Tammy and Vlad have worked very hard to destroy BCS one of our schools - our top preforming public school- Bullis Charter School.

Interesting comments from several view points. It doesn't seem like very many new signs have gone up in the last few days. Many people will be voting soon using mail in ballots. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. The bond is going to have a huge effect on this school board election.

@John Swan Against

Is Mr. Swan against the bond? His campaign against measure E might actually help him get elected. No on N voters might be voting for Mr. Swan. The other four candidates have come out solidly for the bond.

Trace is right. Absolutely ridiculous to support candidates that are not committed to revenge on LASD. Our private-but-publically-funded school deserves no less!

I'm so glad BCS exists. It has helped LASD to motivate to add to curriculum so much. Now we have a STEM teacher at each elementary school! We have a STEM lab too! We have a new focus on differentiated instruction to avoid boring some students and losing out on learning with others. And over the years our revenue per students has jumped from $8,000 per student to reach $11,850 per student last year! This is largely due to BCS students making do with about half of the revenue amount at their school. It's just wonderful. LASD should be all hugs and kisses to BCS. It's superb!!!!

I was wondering if some additional campaign signs would get posted this weekend. It doesn't look like. Lots of single candidate signs, or paired with an LAMV sign or maybe a city council sign ( some of these in the Springer MV area, mostly for Logan with some others for Swan and McClatchie)

Hard to say who has the most signs in peoples yards but it seems like Swan, McClatchie or Peruri might have most. Logan quite a few on the south side but still clearly in fourth ( maybe she feels that as the incumbent she doesn't need to do much, and maybe she is right. , Ivanovic is clearly in last in the sign war. I wonder if he is planning on dropping out again?

Maybe some more of the hardline BCS hater groups are not supporting Ms. Logan? Maybe they are upset with LASD trustees for settling with BCS?

I am voting for Peruri, McClatchie and Swan. It's time for a change and Vlad and Tammy are part of the old regime that got us into this mess. If you want bond to pass and the funds to be used prudently, McClatchie, Peruri and Swan are your best bets.
If the bond does not pass this time around (it will be very close), having at least one BCS supporter - McClatchie, Swan or both - is our best chance at having a safety net for the bond to pass in 2016.

I will be voting for Vladimir, Sangeeth, and Tammy. Vladimir and Sangeeth will bring proven financial oversight background from CACF and Tammy has done an awesome job bringing peace back to our community. McClatchie can not be trusted after signing over BCS parent donated money to fund frivolous BCS lawsuits against LASD. Swan can not be trusted after his family lead the No on Meausre E parcel tax effort. It's clear Swan does not have the interests and experience to know how to fund our schools.

Hey Roode what happened to all the no on N signs we gave you to put up? Was there a wind storm in Los Altos that blew down all the illegally placed signs?

20% of votes are from families with school age parents. That even seems high - because LASD is only K-8 and 9-12 are in MVLA High School District. It is good to see elections (IMO) without SLATES and obvious sides. Guess what - I ran an anti-school bond campaign - and won a school board seat. (one of my Board cohorts still can't figure that one out). Maybe, some representation (one?) by a BCS - public school supporter will 'mellow out' the LASD governance? Maybe a 'plan well before bond vote' responsible advocate would be good for oversight when the Bond gets passed.
80% of the voters - will not currently have kids in the LASD. That is who will decide this election (and the Bond). And almost all of Those Voters, do not post Lawn-Signs. @voter (original poster) and @ Sign Spotter- isn't it so fun trying to 'divine the gods of elections' by these symbols?

The situation in LASD is as messed up as in MVWSD. There are slates, just behind the scenes. People refer to one group of 3 as the district's candidates, as if the superintendent picked them. Unfortunately, that's the situation as the administration spends time grooming parents to later run for school board. They exert undue influence over the operation of the board.

In this case, the district is also touting a bond measure, which it falsely advertises as reducing or maintaining school sizes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their plans call for increasing the average school size by 12% minimum and it appears to be much more. They put out these false bond measure campaign materials using district funds. They mailed only to voters. They did this about 60 days before the election so they think that makes it legal. I'm not so sure.

HAfE endorsed candidates who are aligned with the LASD PTA and CTA, even if the candidate didn't tell anyone he lost a professional license for ethical violations (Sangeeth) or referred to approximately 20% of the children in our district as being part of a "cancerous lesion that needed to be excised" (Vlad). HAfE continues to spew the venom and HATE that will continue to divide our community. Looking at their latest advertisement, they continue to divide our community. It is of poor taste and should be removed.

We are all ready to move on and unite the community. Lets put candidates in office who will represent ALL children in our district and unite our community. Lets elect individuals who with character qualities that will unite our community.