Posted on Town Square on 7/31:
This editorial is incorrect in its assertion that this candidate application timeline was created by me as board president. In fact, the entire board, at its board meeting on June 30, discussed and voted on a timeline for this process. The board unanimously voted to have candidate applications due at 4 PM on Monday, August 3rd. At 4:05 PM a subcommittee of the board is directed to review all applications to ensure that the applications fulfill the statutory requirements for this office (resident of the school district, registered voter, etc.). The board also directed that on August 4th the applications would be sent to the board and posted on the district website (mvwsd.org). We hope that our community members go onto our website this Tuesday to read the applications. Our interview/selection meeting is Tues. August 18, 6 - 10 PM.

I commend Wheeler. This paper's tabloid coverage and muck racking would just turn off the kind of informed and caring board member the district needs.

Posted on Town Square August 1 after Ellen Wheeler's first posting of the comment above (and she has not yet responded further there either). Please note also that you are now reading the second copy of this story on the Voice website, the original is here: Web Link

Ms. Wheeler, what about the article's main points, which your comment didn't address:

'In the normal course of events, copies of the submitted applications are available to the public and the press as soon as they are filed, just as they would be for candidates running in an election.'

'Wheeler, in an email to the Voice, describes her decision to hide applicant information as being in the interest of "transparency of process and fairness to all candidates." '

' "It's important that all of the candidates feel like they are being treated fairly, and giving them all the same timeline and chance at publicity provides that fairness," she told the Voice in an email. The reality is that four declared applicants have already gone public and spoken to the Voice, negating Wheeler's argument.'

'In the opinion of Nikki Moore, an attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association who specializes in public records and open meeting laws, Wheeler's actions violate state law, which deems the applications to be public information.'

@ Common Sense:

I did not see a point in your post. We already know the Voice and the District have different views of the legal obligations involved. As I recall, the District should be held innocent until proven guilty. They are not hiding anything, only making this extraordinary summer task efficient for themselves. Anybody who wants to know can see everything tomorrow, as indicated by Trustee Wheeler. No beef here, honestly.

"More...:" Did you not read the full editorial?

The Voice (with this editorial, distributed in print on Friday) raised various issues about Wheeler's handling of the candidate applications last week -- how it departs from past practice, and the irony of Wheeler's assertion of "transparency" -- hence the editorial's title. Wheeler commented on one detail above, but has not responded to the rest of the article, i.e. to its overall thrust.

Hilarious! These "citizens" of our city not interested in transparency and not interested in fair visualization of facts. I wonder who these "citizens" really are and why they are so immediately anti-disclosure. Smells fishy all around to me. What is Wheeler's true motive to squelch information like this? Poor Mountain View seems to be getting much more than our share of suspected behavior all around these days. At a minimum, Wheeler's behavior is strange to me.

I read the entire piece and I disagree with the premise. It will all be public tomorrow. The records act may be being misrepresented to the benefit of the Voice, I don't know. I do know that the quoted attorney may not be the only one with a valid opinion.

if you are looking to find out information regarding the MVWSD their website is lacking in all regards. I Checked this morning and as of 9 am there are no statements from the candidates. You would think that since the board is well aware of the negative public perception surrounding the disclosure of applicants that they would have directed staff to post the statements at the start of business today.

The redacted candidate applications are available now: Web Link

In case that link is changed and doesn't work any longer, you should be able to get the new URL from this page: Web Link

It appears that Ms. Wheeler not only orchestrated an ongoing violation of the CA Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6253(a)) but also the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54952.2(b)(1)) in "canvassing" the three other board members (not at a meeting) about whether to allow the Voice to inspect public records plainly not exempt from disclosure. It is not a matter of "opinion." The Public Records Act and the Brown Act are two of few laws that serve as a hedge against corruption in local government in California. Ms. Wheeler's post followed by her failure to respond to the other posts above (not mine) about the unlawful decision to deny access to the applications as required by the Public Records Act only makes the matter more serious. Moreover, these violations are part of a pattern. Ms. Wheeler orchestrated the censurng of board member Steve Nelson using Board bylaws that were and remain unlawful under Education Code Section 7052. While Mr. Nelson admitted to some inappropriate conduct, the bylaws cited seek to forbid board members from going public with much of anything. The Board should have fixed those bylaws after I explained their unlawful overbreadth in late 2013. These recent episodes remind me of the process arranged by Ms. Wheeler in closing Slater school. The common themes appear to be control by Ms. Wheeler and limting the release of information to the public. So, while we can appreciate Ms. Wheeler's dedication and hard work, her ends do not justify unlawful means.

@Gary, If these breaches are really this serious, perhaps you should stop trying to convict Trustee Wheeler in the court of public opinion. You seem to know a great deal of Law, and presumably can figure out what citizen legal remedies are available.

As I have previously seen here, great sport watching the district defend themselves.

Gary: Exactly. Whatever "premise" the poster "More than Enough" may happen to disagree with, the Voice has cited a pattern of irregular and very possibly illegal activities. Mere access to the candidate information is only a part of this picture.

Part of the remedy is alerting the public (and other board members) to law violations. But there are legal remedies as well. I have prevously posted what appears to be the appropriate legal remedy.

Sigh. I went through all this wiyh the PAUSD over the way the Board ( and Skelly ) broke several legal and ethics laws. during his tenure @ the PAUSD
If the PAO has a proper morgue for old editions, you can see the same problems with the PAUSD.

History repeats itself again.