7JFXQPJOU Founding Editor, Kate Wakerly
N S TA F F EDITOR & PUBLISHER Tom Gibboney (223-6507) EDITORIAL Managing Editor Andrea Gemmet (223-6537) Staff Writers Daniel DeBolt (223-6536) Nick Veronin (223-6535) Photographer Michelle Le (223-6530) Contributors Dale Bentson, Angela Hey, Sheila Himmel, Ruth Schecter DESIGN & PRODUCTION Design Director Shannon Corey (223-6560) Assistant Design Director Lili Cao (223-6562) Designers Linda Atilano, Rosanna Leung, Paul Llewellyn, Scott Peterson, Kameron Sawyer ADVERTISING Vice President Sales and Marketing Tom Zahiralis (223-6570) Advertising Representatives Adam Carter (223-6573) Real Estate Account Executive Rosemary Lewkowitz (223-6585) Published every Friday at 450 Cambridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Email news and photos to: editor@MV-Voice.com Email letters to: letters@MV-Voice.com News/Editorial Department (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Display Advertising Sales (650) 964-6300 Classified Advertising Sales t fax (650) 326-0155 Email Classified ads@MV-Voice.com Email Circulation circulation@MV-Voice.com The Voice is published weekly by Embarcadero Media Co. and distributed free to residences and businesses in Mountain View. If you are not currently receiving the paper, you may request free delivery by calling 964-6300. Subscriptions for $60 per year, $100 per 2 years are welcome. Š2013 by Embarcadero Media Company. All rights reserved. Member, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
N WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.MountainViewOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum. Town Square forum Post your views on Town Square at MountainViewOnline.com Email
your views to letters@MV-Voice.com. Indicate if letter is to be published.
to: Editor Mountain View Voice, P.O. Box 405 Mountain View, CA 94042-0405
Call
the Viewpoint desk at 223-6507
â– EDITORIAL â– YOUR LETTERS â– GUEST OPINIONS
N EDITORIAL
N GUEST OPINION
THE OPINION OF THE VOICE
VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY
Board struggles to cope with rogue member
Who needs the Moffett runways?
M
ost public bodies operate under rules which govern how legislation is introduced and approved, and sets policy on decorum, giving whoever is acting as chairperson the authority to run the meeting and recognize members of the body to speak. Unfortunately, at the Mountain View Whisman school board, frustrated president Ellen Wheeler and her colleagues have been unable to use the rules to handle the often out-of-control antics of member Steven Nelson, who frequently refuses to stop his long and repetitive monologues, which can stymie the board for extended periods on an issue that only Nelson supports. Clearly frustrated, Wheeler said last week that board members Chris Chiang and Bill Lambert are drafting a motion to censure Nelson, whom in addition to disrupting meetings has sent harsh emails to staff and shouted at administrators when visiting the district office. At press time, a Voice Public Records Act request for copies of the emails that Nelson sent to district officials had not been fulfilled, but a comment from Wheeler does not paint a pretty picture. “People come up to me all the time to complain about the behavior of Steven Nelson as a board member,� Wheeler said. Nelson himself admits that some of his behavior has been offensive to some board members and administrators, although he said some of it may be due to his personal style. “I would have avoided these conflicts if I could,� he said. “It’s hard to change some habits you get into with personal style.� That style was apparently developed as he was campaigning for the board seat in the November 2012 election and before, when he often would appear before the board as a private citizen. He strongly opposed $198 million bond issue to upgrade schools passed by voters last year, and has disagreed strongly with how the administration of Superintendent Craig Goldman plans to spend the money. During the campaign, and even today, Nelson often brings homemade charts to illustrate his position as he delivers long monologues to the board, sometimes continuing after being asked to end his remarks and sit down. At his first meeting after he was elected, Nelson and Wheeler became embroiled in a loud discussion and during that meeting Nelson repeatedly cut off Wheeler and fellow board members who were attempting to make comments. Nelson admits he sometimes is too enthusiastic in his disagreements with the district. During his campaign, he promised he would challenge district officials if elected. “It’s been rough,� he acknowledged to the Voice. “I think I’ve overstepped,� when asked for his thoughts about the possible censure motion. We fully agree that Nelson has “overstepped.� In case he has forgotten, virtually all government bodies in this country operate under majority rule, which means that each member must bow to the majority if he or she loses or is dissatisfied with a vote. At the 2012 election Nelson surprised many observers when he finished second among the three winners, less than 1,000 votes behind Chiang and more than 1,000 ahead of Lambert. Perhaps voters mistakenly thought his already well-known disagreements with the board in public testimony was a good quality, an assessment that unfortunately has turned out to be very wrong. Sadly, unless Nelson can accept his losses and move on, the board is likely to be preoccupied with more of his grandstanding for some time to come. And censure is not the right tool for the job, but other than recall, it is the only way the board can publicly make a collective statement about its dissatisfaction with Nelson. If he really cares about educating the children of the Mountain View Whisman district, Nelson will drop his grandstanding role and work cooperatively with the rest of the board. By staying within the rules, he can gain the respect of his colleagues and show his constituents that they did not make a mistake when they elected him last November.
By Lenny Siegel
T
o ensure that the planned lease of Moffett Field serves the interest of neighboring communities and to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, any proposed change in the operation of the runways or significant new activities on the former Navy base should be the subject of a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In 1996, when NASA proposed to open up Moffett to air cargo operations, 67.5 percent of Mountain View voters opposed commercial or other civilian air operations there. Opposition to non-governmental use of the Moffett runways in Sunnyvale, directly under the Moffett flightlanding path, was also intense. In response, NASA consulted with
residents of neighboring communities to create a development plan based upon partnerships with high-tech companies and educational institutions. However, last year NASA headquarters sought to unload the now-underutilized airfield. The White House told NASA that it, not the Navy, would be responsible for restoring historic Hangar One after removal of its siding. And Congress cut the budget. Our Congressional delegation fought to preserve Moffett Field in its present status as a limited-use federal airfield, and they appeared victorious this May when NASA and the General Services Administration announced they were seeking private bidders to restore Hangar Continued on next page
N LETTERS VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY
BULLIS, EGAN NEED TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC JAM Talks have moved on to addressing some future solution involving new land, for the crowding faced by the Bullis Charter School on San Antonio Road at W. Portola Avenue. At that meeting, numerous neighbors complained of the traffic at the current principal site in the morning. Los Altos schools have promised to do a new study of the traffic situation there. However, the study last year happened when Bullis had 515 students and so far this year they have generally had fewer (about 495). I’m not sure what a new study of the existing condi-
tions can address, since last year’s study already indicated that there would be problems. I would like to suggest that pending any studies, an obvious conflict be addressed. Bullis has always started its extended day program at 8 a.m. Egan has always had its warning bell, at 8:07 a.m. It seems to me that there are bound to be more cars than necessary with this spacing. I suggest that for the sake of the neighbors, Bullis look at starting five minutes earlier, and Egan look at having its warning bell five minutes later. To be specific: Bullis should start at 7:55 a.m.; Egan’s first bell should ring at 8:12 a.m. Continued on next page
September 20, 2013 â– Mountain View Voice â– MountainViewOnline.com â–
11