Town Square

Post a New Topic

Charles Munger, Mandy Lowell and Prop 30 School Measure

Original post made by Duveneck mom, Duveneck/St. Francis, on Oct 30, 2012

I am starting this thread because the thread about the death penalty is being swamped by comments on this topic, and I think it is important to be able to have both discussions separately.

The Weekly's story is here: Web Link, excerpted below about Proposition 30. The discussion is about why Mandy Lowell, a former Palo Alto school board member, is involved in a campaign against Proposition 30 through her husband's contribution of $35 million to defeat Prop 30. If Prop 30 loses, it will mean large cuts to education funding statewide.

"The fight over Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed tax initiative, has attracted major campaign contributions statewide, with the two sides raising more than $110 million in cash, according to Maplight, a nonprofit that tracks campaign finances. Most local contributions have been made in favor of Brown's plan, which would increase income tax for those making more than $250,000 a year and increase the sales tax by ' cents over four years. The sales tax, Brown has argued, is necessary to avoid a series of steep cuts to education and public safety that would be implemented early next year if voters strike down Proposition 30.

The quest to defeat Brown's tax plan is being led by Palo Alto-based political activist Charles Munger Jr., whose half-sister, Molly Munger, is pursuing a rival tax measure, Proposition 38. Charles Munger's contribution of $35 million accounts for about two-thirds of the funds in the campaign against Proposition 30. Munger is the husband of former Palo Alto Board of Education member Mandy Lowell, who on Aug. 21 spoke to the board urging their support of Proposition 38.

The only other multi-million dollar contribution in opposition of Brown's tax measure came from the group Americans for Responsible Leadership, an Arizona-based group that backs Republican causes. The organization contributed $11 million in opposition to Proposition 38, according to Maplight."

Comments (55)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Duveneck mom
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm

I'll start off. I'm really upset about this, because Proposition 30 is truly our only hope to avoid large cuts in education statewide and here in our district. Prop 38 is not getting support in the polls, and Prop looks like it might come in under 50% -- probably because of the money that Munger and Lowell are putting into tearing it down. I just feel sick about the fact that this is coming from our community, because it's going to hurt kids in a bad way.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Duveneck mom - any insight into why Molly Munger is so into 38- to take out 30 or because she really believes it's better? I thought she & Charlie had diverging political ideals, but maybe I'm mistaken. Are they proponents of privatizing schools?

Thank you for pointing out the importance of what's going on.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ducatigirl
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 1:41 pm

I have already voted and I voted FOR prop 30, but I recently read in another publication that if you are truly worried about 30 not going through, vote for 30 and 38. The logic claimed for this is that if both pass, the one with more votes will be enacted, and that either way our children will win.

Another thing I read in this same publication, and I wish I had read it sooner, is that you should wait as long as possible to vote, like after debates, etc are over and done with. Then your have more information, supposedly, to make decisions with.

Anyway, why in Tarnation are people from out of state meddling in CA politics? It is none of their beeswax!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vote for Both
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2012 at 1:42 pm

The two tax measures work differently. Prop 30 does not bring more money into our schools; it threatens to take money away if it doesn't pass. Prop 38 generates money that for schools.

East Palo Alto schools come out $3 million ahead if Proposition 38 passes and Proposition 30 fails. It pencils out the same direction for Palo Alto schools too.

Most folks I've talked to are voting yes on both to give at least one a chance of passing.

Worst case is if they both fail and only cuts are made.

Unfortunately, neither are polling very well. Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Ducatigirl - re AZ $$- thoughts are the Koch brothers are behind it, as the attorney for the AZ group is the same as the Koch brothers.

Thank you, Vote for Both - that's my thought as well.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim H
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Could be that 30 is starting to fail because people are starting to see through the threats for Gov. Brown. "If you don't vote for 30, State Parks will need to be closed. What, we have money for that? OK, if you don't vote for 30, the school system will fall apart. What, we're only going to reinstate previous cuts and the rest will go to paying off all of the wasteful spending throughout the state?"

38 on the other hand, puts 70% of the money into schools until 2017 and then 100% into schools until the end of the 12th year.

Don't get your voting advice on internet blogs, go here for the impartial analysis. Web Link

Listening to radio ads and political flyers is how CA ended up voting yes on High Speed Rail. Take the 30 minutes to read the analysis. It'll be easy to see that 38 is much more beneficial to the schools than 30.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by what?
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 30, 2012 at 2:18 pm

I am sickened by this. Charlie and Mandy Munger spent $65 MILLION dollars to defeat education funding for public schools, and to take away rights from teachers. They spent $35 million dollars (wow!) in a negative campaign targeted at Brown's effort to save the schools. Everyone knows that 38 is sure to fail. So rather than just swing their support to Brown's effort, they spent $35 million dollars on a horrible negative campaign, just to make sure that no one would win. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 3:10 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Duveneck mom
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 4:20 pm

The truth is pretty simple. Proposition 38 is losing in the polls. Proposition 30 was winning until a wave of negative advertising hit. That was funded by Mandy Lowell and Charles Munger to the tune of $35 million, after it became clear that Proposition 38 was going down and Proposition 30 would pass. The reason why? I don't know but probably a fit of pique, since Prop 38 is the brainchild of Munger's sister Molly. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] I can tell you too that as the rest of California public schools go down the drain, politicians in Sacramento are going to wonder why basic aid districts like Palo Alto don't get hit, and to draw the connection to Lowell and Munger. Why should we get to lob bombs at other school districts and keep all of our property tax revenue?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm

It is time for educational vouchers to have their day. It is already happening in a slow-motion way, via charter schools. If California wants to return to educational excellence, vouchers are the only way. The public school unions are a disaster for our next generation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 5:19 pm

It's not even the unions. It's not the teachers. It's comments like the above with the correlating attitude which are the problem. It's also our laws that allow outside money & wannabe power players that screw things up.

Duveneck mom, I think it's pretty clear now & will remain so to those in Sacramento what is happening here. They either will play the game of the powerMungers or they won't. It likely is a fit of pique spurring the latest Munger behavior - Molly & Charlie may not have political opinions in common, but they appear to have big egos & an important sense of entitlement. And speaking of the latter, if Calif wants to comb out of its current mess, we all have to pay more to get there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vote for Both
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 5:49 pm

Duveneck mom,

By your logic the PTAs must be gunning to get rid of public schools too since they are co-sponsors of and contributors to Proposition 38 and only one proposition - 30 or 38 - gets to win.

PTA/Prop 38: Web Link

Since you think Sacramento hasn't had it in for locally funded school districts like Palo Alto before now means either you don't keep up with the news or have a very personal itch to scratch with the Mungers for some other reason.

2003: Web Link ("Prospect of catastrophic budget reductions looms over school district, creating anxieties for entire community")

You might want to read the 2003 Palo Alto Weekly articles describing the role Mandy Lowell played in protecting our schools from those massive cuts while she was President of our PUBLIC School Board before throwing stones.

Big, big picture: Even if Prop 30 doesn't pass, it looks like the pain will be temporary.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Insider
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 30, 2012 at 5:51 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vote for Both
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm

Hmmm,

If Proposition 30 fails public education will be destroyed? Really? If it fails, the cuts to education will come in under 8%. Not good at all, but it will not "destroy" education in this state.

If you are really afraid that the "poor kids in EPA will turn more to crime, for lack of education & jobs, & rob" Palo Alto folks then I'd suggest you vote for Prop 38 only which, again, will net them $3 million instead of $0.

Could it be that you prefer Prop 30 even though it will send substantially less money to our schools (i.e. none) because Prop 38 taxes everyone and Prop 30 only taxes the rich?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Duveneck mon
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 30, 2012 at 6:26 pm

The PTA isn't spending money to defeat 30. I know about 2003, that's what I am afraid of. I don't know what you mean by the big picture. Losing billions of dollars for education seems pretty big to me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 7:12 pm

I personally think everyone needs to pay more, but the rich need to pay a LOT more. It's not that I think 38 is terrible, but I'm suspicious of the agenda behind it, just as I am about some other propositions. I'm always suspicious of the agendas of billionaire cabals - it's just that we don't always know about them until late in the game. It remains to be seen, or not, how much $$ 30 will put in the schools.

Re the potential crime, I was thinking of the irony of the Mungers & their ilk getting robbed after the schools get robbed. (I also know that education starts at home & many EPA parents are ill-equipped for that role, hence the constant kvetching about schools here.)

I didn't say a defeated 30 would destroy education, because I don't believe it would. Quit trying to paint an inaccurate portrait. Frankly, I'm still astonished that people voted for 13 but felt entitled to whine about education decline as a result(not astonished by the vote, but by the whining).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by How Come?
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 7:19 pm

@Hmmm, "I personally think everyone needs to pay more, but the rich need to pay a LOT more." How come? It was funny, the TV ad for one of the propositions explains that families making $2 million will "only" pay $76,000 more under their proposed system. My teenager was thought that was shocking - especially when I pointed out that this was in addition to a large state and much larger federal tax already. Soak the rich does not seem to resonate with many - how come with you?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 7:24 pm

Hmmm is a registered user.

Does it really matter why I think it's fine for the rich to pay more? No, it doesn't really matter why I think that. What matters is that the Mungers of the world throw mind-boggling amounts of money toward their agenda and that they're also in cahoots w/anonymous big donors from out of state.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact check
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 7:52 pm

the fact that increasing taxes on people who make more than $2 million shocked your rich teenager is meaningless. The other 99% of the universe that does not live in the PA bubble is not shocked at this idea. It rejoices. And when Jerry Brown goes looking for someone to take revenge on when Prop 30 fails, he is going to come gunning straight for Mandy Lowell, Charles Munger, and Palo Alto's precious basic aid. The days of "we got ours now too bad for middle class families" are over.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sophomore dad
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 9:04 pm

I'm of two minds. On the one hand, people have the right to take positions on political issues and to put their money where their mouth is. If Munger and Lowell want to spend money opposing public school funding, so be it. If we don't want rich people to buy elections, then we should change the law. Until then, it's their right.

On the other hand, everyone has to take responsibility for what they say and for consequences. Spending millions on a negative campaign that is going to mean less money for schools, shorter school year, higher tuition for college students, is pretty heavy stuff. I don't agree with it, and I don't like the fact that it's coming out of our community.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by How Come?
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 9:57 pm

@Hmmm - ok. But it comes across like just "soak the rich," which doesn't do much to persuade people to agree with you. But maybe you don't care and just want to vent.

I'm fine with Mrs. Lowell spending her money as she sees fit. Good for her for participating in the process.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by How Come?
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:04 pm

@fact check - maybe my teenager's view is meaningless, but I don't think so. I think the ad is just not very effective. I don't think many people think "only $76,000" sounds like a small amount.

And maybe Gov. Brown will come after Palo Alto because of Mrs. Lowell. But I don't really think state politics is quite that personal.

If 30 fails, I tend to think it won't be because of 38. It will be because many people feel over-taxed already and don't trust the state government - unfortunately with some good reasons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact check
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:13 pm

how come -- yes when someone spends $35 million to defeat your signature initiative I think that qualifies as personal to Governor Brown. You would have to be very naive to think that he will just shrug that off as regular politics. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:15 pm

To clarify, once again, the money is coming from her husband Charles, further, there is no mention that when she "urged support of 38" that she didn't say vote for 30 too. I can't really see any reason to not vote for both given that Brown's will probably come in ahead anyway. Also, it's understandable that Lowell might want both endorsed because they are both better than nothing (obviously -- Brown's holding $6bn cuts over the schools' heads) but because 38 doesn't go to the general fund (funny thing, money rarely gets allocated to education from there...?) and provides that the money not to to administrative costs, it might even be better. From 38:
"(c) CETF funds shall be allocated and used exclusively as set forth in this act and shall not be used to pay administrative costs except as specifically authorized by the act. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, CETF funds shall not be transferred or loaned to the General Fund or to any other fund, person, or entity for any purpose or at any time except as expressly permitted in Section 14813."
Also, I acknowledge the fear that if 38 were to pass Brown would just cut the education spending that he can, however, given that 30 has no limits on where the funding goes it's not like that revenue isn't going to get re-allocated anyway. And besides that, a quick google serach told me Charles Munger is aiming to get 32 passed but (I think) more of the PAC funds he gave ended up going to against 30 than he possibly intended.

And as for "I'm sickened too. I can tell you too that as the rest of California public schools go down the drain, politicians in Sacramento are going to wonder why basic aid districts like Palo Alto don't get hit, and to draw the connection to Lowell and Munger. Why should we get to lob bombs at other school districts and keep all of our property tax revenue? I think Mandy Lowell just painted a giant target on our back," not only is politics not that personal but it's not very plausible to take away basic aid privileges. In the past, basic aid districts have proved very vocal in support of their rights and those without basic aid privileges, that is, the rest of the state, is semi-indifferent because they don't particularly "lose" anything by our having extra funding. It's certainly not plausible for Brown to declare that basic aid districts will get no state funding (obviously) so the claim that other districts would get more funding simply is proven false.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on 30
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:20 pm

Does this negative campaign include false statements?

I'm not convinced that it does. I think they are exposing the weaknesses of the proposition. It takes a lot of money to counter pro-30 messages that were themselves spread with lots of money to protect big money interests.

Brown's own ads claim and strongly imply that the prop 30 money will go to education, but it need not. It's simply a way to help give the state more money and has been misrepresented by paid messaging.

38 does what more people want, and 30 claims to do what 38 does.

In this light, this huge private expense is put toward a more noble cause than asuaging egos or seeking revenge.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact check
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:30 pm

"C" wrote: "there is no mention that when she "urged support of 38" that she didn't say vote for 30 too."

She didn't say that though.

Web Link On August 31, Mandy Lowell went to the school board and lobbied them to endorse 38. She did not urge them to vote for 30. She argued that "however you come out on 30, you should support 38." She lobbied against Prop 30 by telling the board that Prop 30 would not really provide money for the schools at all, and that was why they should support Prop 38. She told the board that 38 was better than Prop 30, and was making a negative argument about 30 being not really for education. She did not tell them that $35 million dollars of her personal money was being devoted to killing Prop 30 but perhaps they already knew that as she is close to several of them. As far as this being Charlie not Mandy, do you seriously think that he spent $35 million dollars without discussing it with his wife? He didn't go get a quart of milk. He decided to take a gut shot at the Governor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by How Come?
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:41 pm

@fact check - you might be right, but again, I don't think so. The idea that Gov Brown will punish Mrs. Lowell's home town in retribution seems far fetched. There may be an attempt to attack the basic aid structure, who knows, and maybe that's what you mean. But I don't think it makes sense to interpret that as a personal vendetta against Mrs. Lowell.

Good luck to all the combatants!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:06 pm

Fact check:
But that's the thing -- she wasn't lobbying against 30 per se, but showing its' downsides rather than purely its advantages. I would call this realism or comparison rather than lobbying, because I tend to associate lobbying with entirely one-sided arguments which often contain BS. As for it not being about education, given that Brown's 30 is a budget while Munger's 38 is an education-only measure, obviously one is going to be more focused on education while the other represents other interests. As for the funding, I do find it more questionable because on Mr. Munger's redistricting measure of 2010 both he and Ms. Lowell funded it while on this measure only Mr. Munger's name appears. Perhaps not, but I was under the impression they were two very different individuals who make their own political contributions -- they both agreed on the redistricting measure so they both gave, but on this one since Ms. Lowell's name doesn't appear....?This is, however, all theory. But please note that it appears Mr. Munger's primary cause is prop 32, the union/corporation contribution one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact check
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:20 pm

"showing its downsides" sounds like the same thing as "lobbying against it" to me. Dunno. But spending $35 million dollars to put Prop 30 in the tank is lobbying and then not revealing that slight conflict of interest to the board is shall we say awkward. The fact that her name isn't on it likely just reflects the fact that she didn't want her name on it.

As to whether Jerry Brown knows who to come looking for when the $35 million dollars worth of chickens come home to roost, have no fear. At Brown's rally today at Cal State LA [portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff], Senator De Leon said "To have multi-millionaires decide California's future is unfair. I This is not a game this is real life. [Charles Munger] must have a different agenda, completely different from, I think the majority of California." So much for no one realizing what was done and who did it.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27 pm

How come - I don't care to persuade people to agree w/me - I'm not running for office, nor am I trying to get people to vote or not vote for a proposition. I AM saying the rich should pay more, as they make more - you said soak, I said pay a lot more. You exaggerate what you think my position in & try to twist my words. You need to stop that.

I also don't think people like the Mungers are merely "participating in the process" when they use huge amounts of money to defeat a proposition, as well as get their own to pass. They're manipulating politics and aren't above helping cultivate out of state money to help their "participation in the process" w/their other pet proposition.

Insider - how right you are! I was privy to many local political strategy conversations featuring a Palo Alto politico who sees herself all that & a bag of chips. The incessant posturing & sycophantic cultivation of wealthy and/or influential folks was nauseating - & I agreed w/her political positions. It turned off her kids to the point where they made fun of her and I wondered if it was worth it. Must have been because surprise! She's running again for office. Ever since Stanford the robber baron put Palo Alto on the map many of its residents have been all-too concerned w/$$ and it's been unceasing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:51 pm

Brown (and everyone else) knows who did it, of course, but whether he will do anything about it is the question. Mr. Munger has had a target on his back from both parties since his redistricting measure which, of course, was not particularly popular with the incumbent politicians. Besides a large number personal attacks from the media, most of which were borderline falsehoods, he escaped relatively unscathed from that. Who's to say it won't happen again? And I doubt basic aid will be touched.... the most damaging thing that I think will happen will be Mr. Munger will never have a career in politics: I don't think anyone cares.
Hmmm: Molly and Charles have conflicting views and they're not trying to swing the election together. Perhaps swing the election yes, but not together as a team.

And as far as contributions go, I tend to dislike big donors in general so I have to wonder: Why all the hate towards the Mungers and so little towards the Prison guard union, SEIU, and CTU? In the past decade they've certainly spent more than the Mungers have in the same time-period....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 31, 2012 at 1:06 am

I distrust the very rich & their influence in politics at this level. I am cynical about the unions of course but I understand why they exist - in large part because of the political influence wielded by the very rich - Charley's work on 32 is a very telling example. One person making a 35 mil contribution is quite different than individuals who make up an organization. He doesn't have to be a rabid Repub to do more damage than 1 person should be allowed to do. Time will tell what Molly may also do with her money; I'm less suspicious of her not just because I agree w/her politics more but because she doesn't appear to be a Koch brothers ally or be bringing in out of state money to get her way.

It's interesting that these half siblings both are so involved in this particular election a the state level. My only personal knowledge of any of them is Charley, professionally.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact check
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 31, 2012 at 7:48 am

The Weekly's story quotes Board member Dana Tom as advocating for endorsing Lowell-Munger Prop 38 and noting the flaws in Prop 30. "At the end of the day, the effects of neither passing would be far worse for education in our state and for many other aspects of our state," Tom said at the Sept. 4 meeting of the school board.

The story does not note that Tom is the next-door neighbor of Many Lowell-Munger and Charlie Munger and that he surely knew that they were spending millions to kill Prop 30 while promoting Prop 38. Tom should have called that to the attention of the other board members who may not have known about Mandy Lowell-Munger's financial backing of the negative campaign on 30 and they might have wanted to take that campaign spending into account in deciding how to evaluate her comments to the board. When an advocate comes to a public body posing as a neutral arbiter giving a neutral view but actually they have $35 million worth of skin in the game that is a relevant conflict that should have been disclosed, When Mrs. Lowell-Munger didn't disclose it, neighbor and friend Dana Tom should have.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gsheyner
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2012 at 8:13 am

gsheyner is a registered user.

Fact check,

I would like to clarify the sequence. The school board meeting in which Dana Tom spoke about endorsing Propositions 30 and 38 and in which Mandy Lowell made an appearance occurred on Sept. 4. The contributions against Proposition 30 from Charles Munger were more recent. They were made between Sept. 17 and Oct. 25, according to finance records. Thanks.

Gennady


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact check
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 31, 2012 at 8:49 am

Gennady-- thanks for this clarification which highlights the need for full transparency on the school board. Long before Charlie Munger and Mandy Lowell-Munger started throwing millions at destroying public education in California Prop 38 was already being promoted by Molly Munger, Mandy Lowell-Munger's sister-in-law. So when Mandy Lowell came down to the school board on August 21 to lobby them to endorse her family's proposition she didn't say "and by the way, for those who have no idea (i.e., all the teachers union members and voters in Palo Alto) I am married to Charlie Munger and it is my family member who is promoting Prop 38, the very thing I am now urging you to endorse. Maybe she didn't write the giant check to kill public education until a week later, but she already had the family relationship that was undisclosed to the public. The board members knew that she was a Munger -- Dana Tom lives next door to the Mungers, and Mandy Lowell-Munger is on the campaign committees of both Melissa Caswell and Camille Townsend. So one presumes that they knew. But to the citizens and union members of Palo Alto, Mandy Lowell was just a nice former school board member who was helpfully giving them some advice about how to evaluate the 2 propositions [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]. This was nontransparent to say the least. The Weekly should have reported this web of connections and enhanced transparency.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by what?
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 31, 2012 at 10:18 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 31, 2012 at 11:31 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vote for Both
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 31, 2012 at 11:46 am

Ever think that our board members support Prop 38 because the California State PTA co-sponsors it? Take a look at Proposition 38's list of endorsers; there are plenty of school boards across the state, including ones from Basic Aid districts, on the list:

Web Link

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by what?
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 31, 2012 at 1:08 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] All I am saying is Mandy Lowell says she's an education backer but she was personally giving $35 million dollars to wreck public education in CA and buy that election on Prop 30. Someone else was saying that she should have told the public that it was her family that was pushing 38 when she got up there to advocate to the school board for it. That sounds right to me, full disclosure, this is my family's pet project.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Howard Jarvis
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 31, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Prop 13 was the worst thing to happen to California schools. Now Mandy and Charles Munger are joining forces with Howard Jarvis to do further damage to our schools." Anti-tax group's support can come at a price", LA Times Oct 30,2012 www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jarvis-20121031,0,5683234.story
The American Prospect asks "Will the Munger Kids Kill California Schools?" The article outlines what lead up to 30 and 38 and why the California Teachers Association(CTA) is only supporting 30. Web Link
The CTA website says, "We need to PASS Prop 30 to stop the cuts to our schools - and we must DEFEAT Prop 32 so the billionaires & Super-PACS can't silence our voice. Let's hope the electorate listens to our teachers and not the billionaires dressed in sheep's clothing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Howard Jarvis
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 31, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Link to LA Times linking Munger and Jarvis
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-howard-jarvis-20121031,0,5683234.story


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paly teacher
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 31, 2012 at 1:40 pm

I don't care about whether the school board supported Prop 38 or not, or whether Mandy Lowell disclosed her connection to her sister-in-law when she spoke in favor of it. I'll probably vote for 38 though it will be a futile gesture.

I do care a lot that Mandy Lowell and Charles Munger are funding a multimillion campaign to defeat Prop 30, because that's money that our schools need. Prop 38 is losing, so Prop 30 is all we have left. To attack it is unconscionable. The latest poll is showing it at 48%. It's going to cost our district alone $5 million, and districts across California billions. (See our website at Web Link).

I also don't care much about the school board campaign, because Prop 30 is far more important. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nurse and mom of 2
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Oct 31, 2012 at 1:52 pm

As aver of the nurses union I want to chime in here that I am horrified by this whole thing. Mandy Lowell what you are doing is [portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] The insurers and teachers have had to spend millions on supporting Prop 30 to defend education from you and another hing is that if you have your way on 32 we won't be able to even do that! Of course you support 32 because you would like there to be no voice for the people at all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Insider
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 31, 2012 at 2:00 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 31, 2012 at 3:21 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Umm
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 31, 2012 at 4:14 pm

I gather the state PTA is supporting Prop 38. What's up with that? Should we be angry at them too?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 31, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Perhaps sanity will reign vis a vis this investigation as to who's in who's AZ-based group trying to affect our state politics: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paly teacher
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 31, 2012 at 4:28 pm

@Umm, it's not Mandy Lowell and her husband's support of Prop 38 that is the problem. I mean, it would be better if we had only one proposition but that ship has sailed. It's that they are spending millions of dollars to defeat Prop 30. That will cost PAUSD $5 million which means that Palo Alto students will be hurt. The state PTA is not spending money trying to defeat Prop 30. This is so obvious that I think you may be being obfuscatory on purpose. Here is our web site again: Web Link.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PiE volunteer
a resident of Walter Hays School
on Oct 31, 2012 at 4:59 pm

5 million dollars is almost a million dollars more than we collect each year with thousands of volunteer hours and a huge community effort. We need that money to continue to have good schools in Palo Alto. We all need to vote for Prop 30 and not listen to the negative ads!!!! And Melissa and Camille, please talk to Mandy and try to turn this around, there must be some mistake.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hey weekly
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 31, 2012 at 6:56 pm

Hey weekly, why is it that whenever anyone mentions certain of your protoges in a slightly negative post, it gets removed or the thread gets shut down but when decent people like Mandy Lowell are slandered the posts are allowed to just keep coming? Mandy obviously has no desire to harm public schools - as a billionaire she could start her own school for her kids. But she continues to volunteer in our public schools even after leaving the school board and all of her children do or have attended PAUSD and one is at a public university. Weekly, why are you allowing this?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hey weekly
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 31, 2012 at 6:58 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Umm
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 31, 2012 at 7:07 pm

@Paly Teacher - the PTA lends its credibilty, Mrs. Lowell gives her money - frankly I don't see what the difference is. They both give what they have to give.

"This is so obvious that I think you may be being obfuscatory on purpose" - right back at ya' ;-)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peggy Duncan
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 3, 2012 at 11:36 am

Peggy Duncan is a registered user.

To Ummm, is the PTA actually opposing 30? I do not believe they are actually on the same side as Mandy Lowell (but please correct me if I am wrong).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 4, 2012 at 7:09 am

Perspective is a registered user.

To all of you still confused: Not saying I am for or against more taxes for any reason, but if you are really for more taxes for SCHOOLS, then the Mungers' backed Prop 38 is the only one that actually commits the increased tax rates to schools only. Prop 30 looks like they threw in schools as a sop to get votes, but it leaves CA free to actually spend the money any way it pleases for "public safety". So this angst over being mad at Mungers for prop 38 because you are "for schools' seems highly suspicious to me.

Me, I am for neither one, just posting because dishonest red herrings bother me.


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

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Sneak peek: Bradley's Fine Diner in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,487 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,712 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,632 views

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,413 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 887 views