Riis and Subbarayan entered the race before the filing period closed earlier this month, according to the Mountain View Voice. Riis is a father of two with one child currently enrolled in the district, and he led an unsuccessful effort last year to recall Conley, a campaign he announced at a June 2025 board meeting. That recall drive failed to gather enough signatures to reach the ballot, but Riis told the Voice that the experience shaped his decision to run this time around, saying he was concerned no one else would challenge the incumbents. “No one deserves a walk-on, especially the current board with all of the recent controversies we've faced,” he said.

Two Incumbents Point to Records on the Board

Conley, first elected to the board in 2018 and re-elected in 2022, previously worked as a teacher at the district's Stevenson Elementary School. She points to expanding free after-school care for low-income students, hiring counselors for each school, and adopting a new literacy curriculum as accomplishments from her tenure. Conley also ran unsuccessfully for Mountain View City Council in 2024, and she said she's running for the board again because her work there remains unfinished.

Lambert has served on the board on and off since 2012, stepping away after declining to seek re-election in 2016 before rejoining in 2022. He works as an intellectual property partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and holds a doctorate in chemical physics, a background he says brings a scientist's rigor and a lawyer's thoughtfulness to the board. Lambert said he remains committed to preparing students to attend college.

Newcomers Pitch Fiscal Oversight and New Programs

Subbarayan, the other newcomer in the race, has two children who graduated from Los Altos High School after attending Stevenson Elementary and Crittenden Middle School within the district. He served as head of school implementations for Khan Academy from 2011 to 2012, helping to integrate the platform, founded in Mountain View in 2006, into both the Mountain View Whisman and Los Altos school districts. Subbarayan now sits on the district's artificial intelligence committee and mentors students at Los Altos High School, and he said public education has driven his career and personal life. He's running on three focuses: successful student education, wise financial decisions, and discourse within the district, adding that every voice should be heard.

Riis, for his part, plans to introduce a formal gifted and talented program in the district and says he wants to reduce spending he considers wasteful. That fiscal framing lands amid lingering scrutiny of district spending: public members previously raised alarms over contracts for coaching and meditation sessions for administrators, criticism that helped fuel both Riis's recall attempt and broader turnover on the board.

A Board Reshaped by Recent Turmoil

The five-member board already looks different from what it did two years ago. Three current trustees — Charles DiFazio, Lisa Henry, and Ana Reed — were newly elected in November 2024 and now hold terms running through late 2028, replacing incumbents amid the fallout from spending controversies under former Superintendent Ayindé Rudolph. Rudolph resigned in November 2024 after taking a short-term leave, receiving a $98,259 severance payout, following public outcry over administrative contracts that included a $121,150 deal for guided staff meditation with a self-described “master energy healer” and a $370,000 personal coaching contract for his former supervisor, as reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post.

An extraordinary audit by the state's Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, released in August 2025, found no evidence of fraud or illegal fiscal activity tied to Rudolph's contracts, though the report flagged extensive taxpayer-funded travel, the Daily Post reported. The district hired former Los Altos School District chief Jeffrey Baier as permanent superintendent in March 2025 under a three-year, $385,000-a-year contract, after he had served as interim leader since that February.

Fiscal Pressure Continues Even as Voters Backed New Funding

Despite the turmoil, voters overwhelmingly renewed local school funding in November 2024, approving Measure AA with 74% support to continue a $0.15-per-square-foot parcel tax generating roughly $5.4 million annually for teacher retention and core academic programs. That tax took effect in July 2025. Even so, the district approved $7.4 million in budget cuts for the 2026-27 fiscal year this past January, including a salary freeze for about 60 non-represented administrative staff and a 15% reduction in district office positions, cuts the district says are meant to protect direct classroom instruction.

The district serves roughly 4,600 students across nine elementary schools and two middle schools, with Hispanic students making up 39.3% of enrollment, Asian students 22.5%, and White students 21.8%, according to district demographic data from late 2025. About 26.2% of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals. Unlike the neighboring Mountain View-Los Altos High School District, which shifted this year to geographic trustee areas under the California Voting Rights Act, Mountain View Whisman continues to elect all five of its trustees at-large, as Hoodline previously reported in coverage of the broader local school board landscape.

Voters will decide among Conley, Lambert, Riis, and Subbarayan when the board election takes place in November.

The lawsuit, filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 5:2026cv08249, was first reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post. According to the Post's report, the trip took place in fall 2025 as part of Paly's Social Justice Pathway, a three-year program focused on addressing social problems, and brought students to the Muslim Community Association mosque at 3003 Scott Blvd. in Santa Clara. Named plaintiffs include Paly parents Jafi Lipton and Josh Lehrer, Los Altos Hindu parent Pawan Deshpande, Sunnyvale Zoroastrian parent Dinsha Mistree, Jewish community member Linor Levav, and former student Sahsa Ava Lehrer, along with four anonymous plaintiffs. The advocacy group Community Members for Religious Neutrality in Public Schools also joined the suit.

What the Complaint Alleges Happened Inside the Mosque

Per the lawsuit, students were taught that Islam particularly promotes social justice and were exposed to Zahra Billoo, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whom the district's lawyer, David Rosenberg-Wohl, filed the case describing as a controversial speaker known for hostile and discriminatory statements regarding Jews and sharply ideological political views. The complaint alleges Billoo was given unfettered access to students to advocate her personal religious and political views without balancing perspective or adequate supervision, according to the same account.

Billoo's history has drawn scrutiny before. She was removed from the national board of the Women's March in September 2019, just two days after her appointment, following controversy over past statements about Israel and Jewish organizations, as reported by The Forward. In December 2021, mainstream Bay Area and national Jewish organizations widely condemned Billoo after she delivered a speech characterizing mainstream Jewish federations, campus Hillels and Zionist synagogues as opponents of the Muslim community, according to The Times of Israel.

Claims of Coercion, Privacy Violations and Unequal Treatment

The lawsuit alleges the district failed to maintain religious neutrality, failed to ensure equal treatment among faiths, failed to protect student privacy, and failed to vet, supervise and monitor religiously divisive outside speakers. It further alleges the trip amounted to coercive, school-sponsored religious activity. California Education Code Section 46014 requires explicit written parental consent before students can be excused from regular instruction to participate in religious exercises away from school grounds, per the Pioneer Union Elementary School District's guidance on the statute. Separately, Education Code Section 220 bars any public educational institution receiving state funds from engaging in or permitting religious discrimination against students, according to the California Department of Education.

Attorney Rosenberg-Wohl has litigated similar territory before. He filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in October 2024 against University Preparatory Academy in San Jose on behalf of a Jewish family alleging unaddressed antisemitic harassment, as reported by J. The Jewish News of Northern California. The current case is not the first in California to challenge a public school's partnership tied to CAIR programming; in July 2018, parents and legal advocacy groups sued the San Diego Unified School District over an anti-Islamophobia curriculum developed with CAIR, arguing it violated the Establishment Clause by favoring one religion, according to CBS News.

A District Already Facing a Wave of Litigation

Palo Alto Unified School District representatives did not return a request for comment on Wednesday, per the Daily Post. The district was already defending at least 11 separate lawsuits as of March, covering allegations of unchecked student bullying, employee retaliation and special education disputes, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post's earlier reporting.

This is not the district's only recent federal civil rights fight tied to Palo Alto High School. In May, Hoodline reported on a Paly grading fight over AI after a sophomore's family alleged the school lowered his grade based on automated cheating-detection flags without due process. The mosque trip lawsuit adds to a growing pattern of parents turning to federal court over decisions made inside PAUSD classrooms, and it leaves open, for now, whether the trip included clear opt-out provisions, whether its curriculum was approved at the district level, and whether Billoo was vetted as a guest speaker under district policy.

IFPTE Local 21 and MEF-AFSCME Local 101 together represent about 3,500 San Jose city workers, and both unions are urging members to vote yes on strike authorization, according to ABC7 Bay Area. Union officials reported that nearly 1,000 votes had already been cast yesterday. If members approve the measure, union leadership would have the authority to call a strike lasting up to three days, according to a release from PR Newswire. Results of the vote are expected to be announced next Monday.

At the center of the dispute is a straightforward math problem. San Jose's Last, Best, and Final Offer, issued June 11, includes a 3% annual raise over three years, totaling 9%, per ABC7's reporting. The union coalition is instead demanding 4% in the first year, 4.5% in the second, and 5.5% in the third — a 14% total package they say is needed to match regional inflation, as detailed by KQED.

Workers Describe a Widening Gap Between Pay and Rent

Dylan Kuhlmann-Halui, a union steward for MEF-AFSCME Local 101 who works in San Jose's parks, recreation and neighborhood services department, said a 3% raise would leave him poorer in real terms. He told ABC7 that daycare costs for his daughter were rising 6% and that his rent jumped 8% in a single month. Kuhlmann-Halui said workers are simply seeking a contract that keeps pace with inflation and a city willing to support them.

Michael Jun, a senior development officer with San Jose's housing department and a member of the IFPTE Local 21 bargaining team, recommended that workers vote yes to authorize the strike. Jun said the two sides remain far apart in negotiations. Union leaders have also pushed for artificial intelligence guardrails to protect workers' jobs and have prioritized recruitment and retention as staffing shortages strain city departments, per the same ABC7 report.

Mayor Mahan Says the City Cannot Spend What It Doesn't Have

Mayor Matt Mahan has said San Jose cannot spend money it does not have and has urged the unions that have not accepted the city's offer to return to the negotiating table. Three other San Jose unions have already accepted the city's terms, according to ABC7. Mahan's administration maintains the city made room for raises within its final offer, even as it stops short of the union coalition's inflation-matching demand.

Bargaining unions have also pointed to the city's own spending choices as evidence it can afford more. They cite the San Jose City Council's August 2025 vote committing $325 million in public funds toward modernizing the city-owned SAP Center to help retain the San Jose Sharks through 2051, part of a $425 million total arena renovation effort, as reported by AP News.

Staffing Shortages Are Fueling Overtime Costs

The staffing pressures behind the union's recruitment and retention push are backed by budget numbers. Nearly 400 San Jose fire and police department employees earned more than $100,000 in overtime in 2025, including one firefighter who collected $437,337 in overtime pay, more than twice his base salary. Public safety overtime costs have exceeded budget allocations by tens of millions of dollars, the report found.

Ahead of this week's vote, IFPTE Local 21 and MEF-AFSCME Local 101 ran virtual and in-person “Strike School” sessions in July and early August to train hundreds of city workers on picket line protocols and their labor law protections, with organizers reporting max-capacity attendance. Under California's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and state Supreme Court precedent, public employees hold a statutorily protected right to strike unless the employer can show a substantial and imminent threat to public health and safety, the California Public Employment Relations Board has affirmed.

A Walkout Would Be San Jose's First in Nearly 20 Years

If a strike is called, it would mark the first San Jose city-worker strike in nearly 20 years and would come almost 45 years after the city's landmark 1981 walkout, when AFSCME Local 101 workers struck for nine days over pay inequity for female employees, ultimately winning a $1.4 million wage adjustment. San Jose's most recent minor labor action came in 2007, when fewer than 100 building inspectors walked off the job for two weeks.

A potential strike could affect libraries, housing services, animal care, public works and some airport operations, according to ABC7. The current standoff closely mirrors 2023's brink-of-strike showdown, when the same two unions authorized a three-day walkout that was called off at the last minute after the city and unions reached a two-year contract running through June 30, 2026. Whether history repeats itself this time remains an open question as voting continues through Friday and the strike possibility stays unresolved.

The council approved the $20,000 increase to its sustaining grant program during last Tuesday's meeting, according to The Mercury News. Lawmakers ultimately approved $10,000 for Live Oak Nutrition Center's senior programming and $6,200 for St. Vincent de Paul Society to cover towel and laundering vouchers plus emergency rental assistance for unhoused residents, but rejected $3,000 earmarked for the Anti-Racism Coalition to help cover storage unit rentals and security deposits for people facing homelessness.

The rejection followed a letter filed by Phil Koen, who serves on the Town of Los Gatos Finance Commission, an advisory body that reviews municipal budgets, financial policies and grant allocations. Koen argued that the coalition's arrangement to split rental assistance funds with St. Vincent de Paul Society violated town rules, writing that splitting rent relief by arithmetic spreads the money thin and spreads accountability thinner. He also contended the coalition's program duplicated services already offered by West Valley Community Services and criticized the nonprofit's financial record-keeping.

Council Members Split On How To Respond

Council Member Mary Badame voted against the grants for St. Vincent de Paul Society and Live Oak Nutrition Center, saying town officials are stewards of town and residents' money and noting the town's budget issues. Council Member Matthew Hudes also voted against those grants and proposed allowing the Finance Commission to review community grant program rules before future funding decisions, a motion the council rejected on a 3-2 vote. Hudes raised concerns about ensuring cash assistance reached intended recipients fairly.

Council Member Rob Moore did not share Koen's concerns about the coalition's accountability. Moore said standard receipts and accounting are reasonable practice but he opposed subjecting small nonprofits to formal audits. According to town attorney Gabrielle Whelan, the coalition's arrangement to split funds with St. Vincent de Paul Society was included in the nonprofit's original proposal and aligned with the terms of its grant agreement.

Council Member Ryan Baker, who allowed the coalition and St. Vincent de Paul Society to split the grant money in the first place, said he did so to avoid requiring the two organizations to file duplicate paperwork. Baker reported that the coalition's financial reporting was pretty good and said it could serve as a template for other organizations. He added that the three rental assistance groups meet different community needs, while Council Member Jeff Suzuki said the coalition's program is the most adaptable among them.

What The Coalition's Program Actually Covers

The Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition works with St. Vincent de Paul Society to administer a rental assistance program that offers a maximum payment of $500 to qualifying applicants. The coalition may assist households whose income-earner is lost, unemployed, or has reduced hours or pay, as well as people facing extraordinary expenses such as car accidents or acute medical conditions, an eviction notice, or a rent increase. As part of the grant dispute, the coalition provided line-by-line expenditures, disclosures and copies of canceled checks documenting how it used the funds.

West Valley Community Services, by contrast, provides a more expansive rental assistance program that includes eviction mediation and emergency financial assistance for utility costs and rent. The organization works with the Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System, which provides temporary financial assistance, legal support and case management, and receives $15,000 annually from the town outside the community grant program. The Town of Los Gatos separately secured $200,000 in federal funding with West Valley Community Services in February to operate a mobile navigation van offering homeless support services across Los Gatos and nearby communities.

A Nonprofit Built On Rapid Response

Since launching its emergency rental assistance program in June 2023, the coalition had raised over $25,000 to assist more than 50 families and individuals facing potential eviction across Santa Clara County, according to San José Spotlight. The nonprofit's model relies on quick payments to help low-income households avoid losing housing during temporary financial crises, and it has used its grant money specifically to aid Los Gatos town residents. The coalition has pointed to 2023 Santa Clara County homeless census data showing Hispanic or Latino residents made up 25% of the county population but 41% of unhoused residents, while Black residents comprised 2.9% of the population but over 15% of those experiencing homelessness, as evidence that low-barrier rent relief addresses systemic inequities.

The council previously allocated $60,000 in March 2024 to maintain emergency homeless programs, including hotel vouchers to temporarily shelter unhoused residents during severe winter weather, since Los Gatos lacks a permanent homeless shelter and relies on targeted grants and regional programs. The dispute also arrives as a January regional feasibility study covering Los Gatos, Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno and Saratoga recommended prioritizing direct subsidies for permanent housing and expanding local participation in the countywide prevention system, encouraging alignment with centralized intake and financial tracking.

Budget Pressures Loom Over Every Grant Decision

The council's scrutiny of nonprofit spending comes as Los Gatos navigates persistent fiscal strain. The council adopted an $85.3 million municipal budget for fiscal year 2026-27 that required drawing $1.3 million from town reserves to cover expenditures exceeding revenues, according to the Los Gatan. That budget included $3.2 million in council-added operating spending beyond initial staff recommendations. A year earlier, the town's Finance Commission had unanimously recommended cutting costs and freezing hiring to resolve a projected $2 million operating deficit, with multi-year shortfalls projected between $5 million and $6.5 million.

Rental assistance broadly is meant to help low-income or struggling households pay housing costs, back rent, security deposits and utilities to prevent eviction and homelessness. Whether that mission is best served by a patchwork of small, grassroots nonprofits or by consolidating funds into larger, countywide systems like the one West Valley Community Services taps into remains an open question for Los Gatos officials as they weigh future rounds of grant funding. The town allowed applicants to amend their proposals for the increased grant funds this cycle, leaving room for the debate over accountability and overlap to resurface in future allocations.

According to The Milpitas Beat, the new structure would replace the current employee-based tax with a gross-receipts-based model. If the measure passes, all city businesses would pay an annual flat rate, and companies generating more than $700,000 in annual gross receipts would also pay an additional 25 to 35 cents per $1,000 of gross receipts, depending on business category. City officials say the goal is to ensure larger businesses contribute more to essential city services than smaller ones.

Milpitas City Manager Willie Hopkins said the measure followed a six-month engagement effort with business owners, stakeholders, and more than 700 residents. Hopkins said the city needs additional local funding to address illegal dumping, neighborhood blight, and homelessness. If enacted, all funds generated by the measure would go directly into Milpitas city services, with the city framing the effort as a way to maintain its current level of public service rather than expand it.

Where the Money Would Go

City officials plan to direct the new revenue toward fixing storm drains, replacing aging water and sewer lines, and prioritizing cleaner neighborhood streets and sidewalks. The funding is also intended to help move people off the street and into shelter, treatment, and supportive services, and to help bring more good-paying jobs into the local economy.

The financial pressure behind the measure traces back to a structural deficit that city officials have been managing for more than a year. The City of Milpitas's preliminary FY 2027–31 General Fund forecast, released in March 2026, showed a baseline structural deficit originally projected at $28.5 million in February 2025 had since been trimmed by $4.3 million through fiscal adjustments. That gap has pushed the council toward revenue modernization rather than relying solely on budget cuts.

A Tax Structure Frozen in Time

Milpitas currently collects only about $400,000 a year from its business license tax, according to the city's Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2026–2027 — a modest sum for a city that hosts 550 manufacturing plants and eight industrial parks. That industrial base, a legacy of Ford Motors opening a plant there in 1955, causes the city's daytime population to roughly double to about 130,000 as commuters pour in, according to California Local. That daily surge adds strain to roads and storm drains that the current tax structure was never designed to fund.

The ballot measure arrives after Milpitas residents and businesses already absorbed a separate tax increase earlier this year. Effective April 1, the combined sales tax rate in Milpitas climbed from 9.375% to 10.000% following voter passage of Santa Clara County's Measure A in November 2025, per the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. That followed Milpitas voters' 2024 approval of Measure J, which extended an existing 0.25% sales tax for eight years to maintain 911 response, police, fire, road repair, and homelessness services, according to Ballotpedia.

How Milpitas Compares Regionally

Milpitas already carries one of the higher municipal tax burdens in the region on another front: a June 2026 report by the City of Mountain View found Milpitas imposes a 14.00% transient occupancy tax on hotel stays, tying it with Los Altos and Oakland for the second-highest rate among major Bay Area cities, trailing only Palo Alto's 15.50%. City officials have pointed to strong public satisfaction as they pitch the new measure, citing outreach results showing 83% of surveyed Milpitas residents reported satisfaction with the city's overall quality of life.

Business tax reform has become a recurring theme across Santa Clara County. San Jose voters approved Measure H in November 2022 to raise that city's employee-based business tax to $45 per employee, while Cupertino voters rejected a tax measure proposal in 2024, according to Local News Matters. The mixed outcomes underscore that there's no guarantee Milpitas voters will embrace the new structure simply because the council approved it unanimously.

An Election-Year Backdrop

The measure will not appear on a quiet ballot. Nomination periods for Milpitas Mayor and City Council seats opened on July 31, setting up competitive municipal races that will share the November 3 ballot with the tax question. That timing means candidate positions on business taxation could become a central debate topic in the run-up to the election, as voters weigh both who will lead the city and how it will pay for aging infrastructure and homelessness response in the years ahead.

Pejman Saberin began working for Alation Inc., a California-based enterprise software company, in 2021, living and working remotely from Utah, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. While returning from vacation, Saberin was arrested in Florida. His sister reported to Alation that he had been injured in an accident and emailed the company to request additional time off, the Union-Tribune reported. Alation later uncovered Saberin's arrest, and executives Daniel Rose and Christos Mousouris decided to terminate him, citing his unapproved absence and dishonesty about the reason for it.

The termination decision was made in Illinois, per the newspaper's account, though Mousouris normally worked from home in California and Saberin's direct supervisor worked remotely from Washington. California-based employee Liz Laber, who performed her work from California, provided input into the termination decision and ultimately communicated it to Saberin. The criminal case against Saberin was later dismissed in March 2024.

Arbitration and the Fight Over Which State's Law Applies

Alation's proprietary and inventions agreement required binding arbitration of employment disputes pursuant to California law, and Saberin argued in arbitration that his termination violated that law. He specifically invoked California Labor Code Section 432.7, which bars employers from considering a worker's arrest not followed by conviction when deciding on any condition of employment, including termination, and California Government Code Section 12952, which similarly prohibits employers with five or more workers from weighing an applicant's non-convicted arrest.

An arbitrator rejected Saberin's contention that California law applied to his case. Saberin then petitioned the San Mateo County Superior Court to vacate that arbitration award, arguing under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1286.2(a)(4) that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by failing to conduct a statute-specific extraterritoriality analysis, according to WorkCompAcademy. The trial judge rejected that argument as well, and the case moved to the First District Court of Appeal.

Appeals Court Sides With Alation

On July 30, the California First District Court of Appeal issued a published decision affirming the trial court's order and rejecting Saberin's petition to vacate the arbitration award, according to court records cited by FindLaw. The court agreed that California law did not apply to Saberin's claims, and it deferred to the arbitrator's finding that Laber's input and communication in the termination were not substantive enough to warrant applying California law. The evidence did not suggest, the court found, that Alation had moved Mousouris out of California to dodge California law.　

The appellate court concluded that applying Sections 432.7 and 12952 to Saberin's claims would accomplish neither statute's legislative objective. The California Legislature intended Section 432.7 to protect California workers from losing job opportunities based on arrests without proven guilt and to prevent employers from misusing arrest information, while lawmakers had similar motives in enacting Government Code Section 12952. Because Saberin and his arrest had no connection to California, the court identified Alation's consideration of that arrest as unlawful conduct that nonetheless fell outside the reach of California's statutes as applied to him.

Notably, the court declined to resolve a related question: whether the statutes could apply to California residents who work remotely for employers with no California offices at all. The parties in the case also stipulated that they could identify no Utah, federal, or other applicable non-California law barring termination based on an employee's arrest, leaving Saberin without recourse under any jurisdiction's law once California's was ruled out.

Where California Law Draws the Line

The ruling builds on a body of California Supreme Court precedent addressing where the state's labor protections stop. In the 2020 companion decisions Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., the state's high court held that California labor laws apply based on where liability-creating conduct or the core location of work occurs, not on an employer's corporate residence alone. Earlier, in the 2011 case Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., the court ruled that non-resident employees temporarily working in California are covered by state overtime laws, but that California's Unfair Competition Law does not reach overtime claims for work performed entirely outside the state, according to Seyfarth Shaw.

Employment attorney Eaton, a partner at Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek who focuses on defending and advising employers and also teaches business ethics and employment law at San Diego State University's Fowler College of Business, noted that California workplace laws protect remote workers terminated by California-headquartered employers only under certain circumstances. Per the Union-Tribune's reporting, Eaton explained that employer misconduct generally must be sufficiently connected to California for the state's law to apply to non-California workers, meaning California Labor Code Section 432.7 may extend to non-California workers only when that connection exists. Workers with limited or no ties to California, Eaton added, face special challenges asserting California-law claims against their employers.

A Growing Share of the Workforce Is Affected

The stakes of that legal line have grown alongside the remote workforce itself. A May report by the California Legislative Analyst's Office found that 13 percent of California employees worked primarily from home in 2024, triple the pre-pandemic rate, and that 12 percent of Bay Area job postings offered remote work options. Nationally, workforce data published in July by Founder Reports indicates that 21.7 percent of American employees worked remotely at least part-time as of June, with roughly half operating in hybrid arrangements and just under half working fully remote.

That structural shift has created new jurisdictional puzzles for California companies managing employees scattered across the country, since courts must now determine, case by case, whether enough of an employment dispute touches California soil to trigger the state's protections. Saberin's case shows how thin that connection can be even when a company's headquarters, and some of its decision-makers, sit squarely inside California's borders.

Legislative Backdrop

The statutes at the center of the case trace back to California's broader push to limit how employers use criminal history in hiring and firing decisions. The Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1008 in October 2017, codified as Government Code Section 12952, banning most employers with five or more workers from inquiring into or considering an applicant's conviction history before extending a conditional job offer, according to Seyfarth Shaw. Lawmakers introduced Assembly Bill 2095 in February, proposing further updates to the Fair Chance Act that would expand restrictions on how employers evaluate criminal history during hiring, according to Forbes. That continued legislative attention signals California's ongoing focus on employment screening fairness, even as courts narrow how far those same protections reach once workers cross state lines.

The dispute traces back to a complaint the tow yard owner filed with City Manager Ed Shikada, alleging that Peterson repeatedly invoked his role as a city commissioner in a way that appeared intended to influence the outcome of what was otherwise a private commercial matter, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post. Peterson's daughter's Mustang had been impounded after police towed it over a DMV registration issue. Per the complaint, Peterson allegedly told the tow yard owner he had police friends who would agree with him and that he could change the rules, and he allegedly tried to obtain a discount at the yard.

Shikada hired an outside attorney on March 9 to investigate the complaint, ultimately paying $50,000 for the probe. That attorney sent the finished investigative report to the full City Council on April 7. The report's scope, however, was limited strictly to factual questions about whether the alleged conduct occurred, not to reaching legal or policy conclusions — a distinction Peterson has since emphasized in his own defense.

A Split Council And A Reappointment Vote

Six days after receiving the report, the council voted on Peterson's reappointment to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Councilmembers Vicki Veenker, George Lu, Greer Stone, and Julie Lythcott-Haims voted on April 13 to reappoint him — the same four-member bloc that had originally put Peterson forward for the seat back in January 2025, according to official city council minutes. That consistency in backing has not gone unnoticed by critics who argue the same four councilmembers have now shielded Peterson twice.

Mayor Veenker said on July 10 that she did not believe there was a sufficient basis to conclude Peterson had abused his position. Burt has pushed back hard on that reading; he said on July 11 that he did not understand how Veenker reached that conclusion after reviewing the same report he did. The council, notably, has not formally considered whether Peterson violated any city policy or law — that determination remains outstanding, and the council will ultimately decide whether such violations occurred.

Transparency Versus Privilege

Reckdahl has framed the standoff in blunt terms, saying that refusing to release the report could make it look like the council is hiding something, and that transparency is needed to avoid undermining public trust. He and Burt have said that releasing the report — with any necessary redactions — is required to meet the openness standards Palo Alto residents expect. City Attorney Chris Jensen has indicated the report could be released with personal information belonging to victims or whistleblowers redacted.

Under California Evidence Code Section 912 and the state Supreme Court's 1993 ruling in *Roberts v. City of Palmdale*, confidential legal advice and investigative reports prepared for a public agency stay protected by attorney-client privilege unless the governing body formally votes in open session to waive it, per First Amendment Coalition. Palo Alto Daily Post Editor Dave Price argued in a July 17 column that the council should release the report since public money paid for it, and suggested Veenker may have already effectively waived privilege by discussing the report's contents publicly in an interview.

Peterson, for his part, declined an interview about the towing dispute itself. But in a statement reported by the Daily Post, he maintained that the investigation's scope never went beyond determining whether the alleged conduct happened, and said he considers the matter resolved now that the council reappointed him in April.

Endorsement Letters Raise Fresh Questions

Before that reappointment vote, Peterson submitted endorsement letters to the council on March 2, 2026, including one from a quality assurance tester identified only as Liesel who works at Peterson's own private firm, Palo Alto Data Group, alongside letters from local California Avenue business owners. The solicitation, made while the misconduct investigation was still active, has drawn criticism from residents questioning the appropriateness of a sitting commissioner gathering endorsements from his own employees during an ethics probe.

Peterson brings a substantial professional résumé to the seat. He holds a Ph.D. in civil and environmental engineering from Stanford University, co-directs the Stanford Workforce Virtual Design and Construction Lab, and founded Palo Alto Data Group, which built eCPR, a data platform used for enforcing public works labor standards, according to Stanford Profiles. In 2021, he served as Santa Clara County's first investigator within its Office of Labor Standards Enforcement and currently chairs the Flood Protection Bond Oversight Subcommittee for Valley Water. Earlier in his career, he ran on the North Star Progressive Democrats slate for an Assembly District 24 delegate seat and was a founding member of SCOPE 2035, a Stanford student housing-equity group.

Notably, the towing complaint became public just one day after Peterson told a July 8 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting that parking programs had become his number one issue as a commissioner. Under Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.16 and 2.20, the seven-member commission serves at the pleasure of the City Council, which retains legal authority to remove a commissioner for policy or statutory violations — authority the council has not yet exercised or formally weighed in Peterson's case.

It remains unresolved whether the council will schedule a formal closed-session vote to waive attorney-client privilege, whether a redacted version of the report will ever reach the public, or whether the council will take up broader ethics standards for commissioners in open session. Peterson, at 49, remains seated on the commission as the council majority and its two dissenting members continue to disagree over how much of the $50,000 report Palo Alto residents are entitled to see.

The San Jose Mayor's Office confirmed Aubrey's leave to The Press Democrat, which first reported the news today and described the situation as a developing story. Aubrey, 67, was appointed independent police auditor in April 2024, arriving with a résumé that spans law enforcement, prosecution and the bench.

A Career in Policing and Oversight Before the Watchdog Post

Aubrey previously worked as a police officer in Santa Monica and Los Angeles, later serving as a pro tem judge and heading the public safety department at a community college, the same report notes. He also worked as a criminal and city prosecutor in Seattle before moving into police oversight work full-time.

In 2009, he led the establishment of a police oversight body in Fresno, according to the same account. Aubrey relocated to the Bay Area in 2016 and that same year founded the Richmond Police Department's Office of Professional Accountability, laying the groundwork for the civilian oversight career that eventually brought him to San Jose.

Assistant Auditor Dwight White Steps In

Running the office in Aubrey's absence is Dwight White, the assistant independent police auditor, who joined San Jose's office in 2025. White previously served as Sacramento's first inspector general in 2021, where he led independent investigations into police shootings, in-custody deaths, excessive force cases and misconduct complaints, according to KQED.

White holds a law degree from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law and previously investigated white-collar misconduct for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in Chicago, according to the same report.

Access Battles Marked Aubrey's Tenure

Aubrey had spent much of the past year pressing to widen his office's authority. In June 2025, he submitted an annual audit report recommending that his office review all 400 use-of-force incidents from 2024, rather than only the 13 cases involving great bodily injury, according to San José Spotlight. The San Jose City Council unanimously rejected the proposal, citing cost and workload concerns, the outlet reported.

Weeks later, on July 6, 2025, the San Jose Police Department temporarily barred both the auditor's office and its own Internal Affairs investigators from routine crime-scene access and briefings during a fatal police shooting, according to the Reddit. The department reversed that policy later the same month amid public scrutiny, the paper reported.

An Office Built on a Voter Mandate but Limited Power

The access clash highlighted long-standing limits on the auditor's authority. San Jose voters overwhelmingly expanded that authority once before: in November 2020, they approved Measure G with 77.25% of the vote, amending the City Charter to let the auditor review department-initiated internal investigations and access unredacted records from fatal or major use-of-force cases, according to Ballotpedia. Hoodline covered the measure's passage at the time.

San Jose created the office by city ordinance in 1993, and even today it functions only as an advisory body with no means to enforce reforms or recommendations beyond public and political pressure, the same report notes. It is a charter officer that reports directly to the City Council, which holds exclusive authority to appoint, supervise or remove the auditor, according to the City of San José.

City officials have also explored moving internal police investigations out of the department entirely and into the auditor's office, per the same account. Hoodline has previously chronicled a case the office once monitored, when investigators tracked an in-custody death at a Santa Clara hospital in 2023.

A History of Turnover in San Jose's Watchdog Office

Aubrey's leave adds to a pattern of upheaval in the office. Former auditor Aaron Zisser stepped down in August 2018 after less than a year on the job, citing intense political pressure and personal attacks from the San Jose Police Officers' Association during debates over expanding oversight, according to San Jose Inside.

His successor, Shivaun Nurre, retired in June 2023 following a workplace complaint over a heated, drunken altercation with an off-duty police officer at a local festival, San José Spotlight reported. That September, Assistant Independent Police Auditor Eva Roa resigned and issued a scathing letter accusing city officials of ignoring the watchdog office and criticizing the police department for failing to foster genuine accountability, the outlet also reported.

The Scope of What the Office Oversees

The stakes of that turnover are significant given the size of San Jose's police force. The department received 367 conduct complaints in 2023, with roughly 27% of all sworn officers — 285 officers — named in at least one complaint that year, according to annual reporting from the auditor's office cited by KQED.

Candidates have until next Wednesday to file nomination paperwork with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, according to Mountain View Voice. Esmeralda Ortiz, who lives in Area 2 and had been expected to run, will not enter the race, citing growing familial and career responsibilities, the outlet reports.

A District Redrawn by State Law

This is the first time MVLA trustees will be elected by geographic area rather than at-large, a shift the district adopted to comply with the California Voting Rights Act. The boundaries were drawn using 2020 U.S. Census data analyzed by demography firm SchoolWorks Inc., a change intended to prevent minority vote dilution, according to the Los Altos Town Crier. Each of the district's five newly drawn areas will elect one trustee.

Area 2 isn't the only seat on the ballot this fall. Engineer Nir Paz is running unopposed in Area 1, while Area 3 has drawn a three-way contest between incumbents Thida Cornes and Catherine Vonnegut and former trustee Sanjay Dave, per the Palo Alto Daily Post.

Term Limits Force a Council Shake-Up

Kamei's move to the school board race stems from Mountain View's own election rules, which cap council members at two consecutive four-year terms and require a two-year break before they can run again. That structure is pushing three termed-out members, including Kamei, off the council when their terms end in January 2027, and seven candidates have already entered the scramble for the three seats that will open up, according to San José Spotlight.

Kamei leaves behind a council record that includes votes on some of Mountain View's biggest recent debates, from an 8-story downtown condo plan to a middle-income homebuyer program and the city's $1.2 billion park fight.

From City Hall to Higher-Ed Government Affairs

Off the dais, Kamei works as Director of Government Affairs and Public Information Officer for the Foothill-De Anza Community College District and holds a Master of Public Administration from the University of Pennsylvania, according to a biography published by American University. Earlier in her career, the bio notes, she worked as a legislative aide to state and federal lawmakers.

Kamei's local political career has already produced one historic milestone. In January 2020, she served as vice mayor alongside Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga, a pairing political historians noted as the first Japanese American female mayor and vice mayor duo in continental U.S. history, according to The Rafu Shimpo. She went on to serve as Mountain View's mayor in both 2021 and 2025.

A Political Family, and a Resolved Lawsuit

Kamei isn't the only officeholder in her family. Her mother, Rosemary Kamei, serves as vice mayor and District 1 councilmember in neighboring San Jose, and the two were sworn into their respective council seats on the same day in January 2023, forming what Nichi Bei News described as a rare mother-daughter local government pairing. Ellen Kamei is also a third-generation Mountain View resident of Japanese, Chinese and Puerto Rican background who speaks Spanish, Japanese and Mandarin and grew up working on her family's 10-acre flower nursery; her father was born at the Heart Mountain internment camp in Wyoming, the outlet has also reported.

Kamei's council tenure also included a federal lawsuit that has since been resolved. U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins dismissed a civil rights suit in November 2025 that accused Kamei of using her official position to cause the arrest of a tow truck driver who had towed her car in April 2023. The judge ruled the plaintiff failed to show that Kamei acted without probable cause or directly caused the arrest, per the Daily Post's report.

The $150 Million District Awaiting a New Trustee

Whoever wins the Area 2 seat will help oversee a district projected to bring in $150.2 million in general revenue for the 2025-26 school year, with $129.4 million of that coming through California's Local Control Funding Formula, according to the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District's own accountability plan, which includes $1.78 million earmarked specifically for high-needs students. The district serves roughly 4,450 students across Mountain View High, Los Altos High and Alta Vista High, and Niche ranked it the No. 2 public school district in California for 2026.

What The Contract Would Put In Classrooms

The Alum Rock Union School District board plans to consider the partnership as part of its consent calendar, a grouping of items typically approved in one vote. As reported by San José Spotlight, Trustee Corina Herrera-Loera intends to ask that the RealOptions proposal be removed for a separate public discussion and says she plans to vote against it.

RealOptions says its RealTalk education program covers boundaries, consent, communication, friendships, dating, sexual harassment and cyberbullying. The organization describes its REAL Essentials curriculum as an evidence-based program focused on helping students build healthy relationships and make what it calls healthy lifestyle choices, rather than presenting the contract as traditional reproductive-health care.

Why A State Lawsuit Is Part Of The Debate

The proposed school partnership is drawing extra scrutiny because RealOptions is a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the California Department of Justice. In last Thursday's statement, the California Department of Justice said evidence had concluded after six weeks of trial proceedings and reiterated allegations that RealOptions and Heartbeat International used misleading claims to promote abortion-pill reversal, a procedure the state says lacks reliable scientific support and carries safety concerns.

That lawsuit has not been resolved, but it is shaping the local argument over whether RealOptions is an appropriate classroom partner. Veronica Amador, a parent and community leader, told San José Spotlight that she visited a RealOptions clinic as a pregnant teenager and felt she was not given the options she expected; SOMOS Mayfair co-executive director Victor Vasquez also pointed to Next Door Solutions, the YWCA and the Santa Clara County Public Health Department as possible alternatives, saying, “There are better organizations that are also neutral on certain issues.”

The board’s scheduled vote will determine whether the proposed partnership moves forward, gets pulled into a fuller discussion or is rejected. For families in the district, the argument is not simply about whether relationship education belongs in school, but about who should deliver it and what standards should govern the choice.

The Mountain View-Los Altos High School District is weighing a policy that would prohibit students from wearing, activating or using AI-enabled eyewear, including smart glasses, anywhere on campus during the school day, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post. The proposed rule would be stricter than the district’s cellphone policy, which generally allows phones during noninstructional time.

Why These Glasses Are Different From Phones

Ray-Ban Meta glasses, one of the best-known products in the category, can take photos and videos, play music, make calls and interact with an AI assistant. Meta’s own explanation says the glasses can capture an image after an AI request and send that image, along with the user’s spoken prompt, to the company’s model for interpretation.

That combination gives the wearer a hands-free way to query what is in front of them, while also raising the awkward question of what everyone else in the room can know about the camera. The district told the Palo Alto Daily Post that its proposal is meant to protect student and staff privacy and reduce disruptions to instruction.

Cheating And Privacy Are Driving The Push

Testing officials are already treating smart glasses as a serious academic-integrity problem. The College Board’s current SAT rules prohibit smart glasses and other eyewear that can access the internet or AI services, and allow testing staff to examine glasses suspected of capturing images, accessing the internet or communicating with an AI service.

California’s education officials are also telling districts to think about more than screen distraction as AI spreads through classrooms. The California Department of Education says its 2026 AI guidance addresses data privacy and academic integrity, two issues that are especially difficult to police when the technology is built into an ordinary-looking pair of frames.

Sequoia District Already Included Smart Glasses

The proposal would not be the first local attempt to write smart glasses into school-device rules. The Sequoia Union High School District included smart glasses in a broader definition of mobile communication devices and requires covered devices to be powered off and stored during instructional time beginning with the 2026-27 school year.

That approach treats smart glasses less like a special novelty and more like another connected personal device, alongside phones, tablets, smartwatches and earbuds. Mountain View-Los Altos trustees are considering a sharper line: no AI-enabled eyewear during the school day, even when a student is outside a classroom.

California’s Phone Law Sets The Floor

The state’s Phone-Free Schools Act requires every California school district to adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting student smartphone use by July 1. The California Legislature’s bill text also lists exceptions for emergencies, teacher or administrator permission, medical needs and requirements in an individualized education program.

That law specifically addresses smartphones, so the Mountain View-Los Altos proposal would go beyond the state minimum by naming AI-enabled eyewear directly. The timing also reflects a broader policy shift: New York’s court system began prohibiting smart glasses in its facilities on July 20 because of concerns about unauthorized audio and video recording, according to New York Courts.

For students, the practical question is simple but increasingly expensive: whether a pair of glasses can still be treated as just glasses once it can record the room and consult an AI assistant. The Mountain View-Los Altos board’s Monday night discussion could provide an answer for local campuses before the next generation of wearables makes that question even harder to ignore.

The increase will move the general wage floor up from $16.90, which took effect January 1. ABC7 Bay Area reported that Gov. Gavin Newsom framed the change as part of California’s effort to put more money in the pockets of working families.

California’s Inflation-Linked Wage Floor Keeps Climbing

The state’s minimum wage is adjusted annually for inflation after reaching $15 an hour, using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The California Department of Industrial Relations says the annual increase cannot be negative and is capped at 3.5% in any one year.

The coming increase amounts to roughly 3% over the current statewide rate. It is not an immediate paycheck change: employers generally will not need to apply the $17.40 rate until the first day of 2027.

Federal And Local Wage Rules Still Complicate The Picture

California’s new rate will sit far above the federal minimum wage, which remains $7.25 an hour under federal law, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Newsom’s statement highlighted that gap while criticizing federal inaction on raising the national wage floor.

For Bay Area workers, however, $17.40 may be only the starting point. Cities and counties can impose higher local minimum wages, and the state’s labor agency says employers must follow the local rate when it is more favorable to employees.

Some industries will also remain on separate wage schedules. Fast-food workers covered by California’s industry-specific law will continue earning at least $20 an hour, a rate that took effect in 2024, while certain health care workers are covered by their own higher state minimums, ABC7 Bay Area noted.

What The 2027 Increase Means For Paychecks

Workers earning the statewide minimum should see an additional $20 for every 40-hour workweek before taxes once the new rate takes effect. Employers will need to update payroll systems, job postings and workplace notices before January arrives, while businesses operating across multiple Bay Area cities will still have to track whichever local wage is higher.

The wage announcement also keeps California’s long-running debate over affordability and business costs in view. For workers, the extra cents arrive against some of the country’s highest housing and living expenses; for employers, the increase adds another scheduled labor-cost adjustment to plan around.

The Mountain View Voice reported Wednesday that the law is set to take effect Saturday. California's current statutory text lists August 2, as the operative date, meaning the requirements are arriving at the start of August after a delay from their original timeline.

The California AI Transparency Act was first passed as Senate Bill 942 in 2024. Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said the measure was intended to help Californians identify synthetic content, while Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, D-Los Angeles, were identified as its co-authors.

What AI Providers Will Have To Disclose

Under the law, covered providers are developers of publicly accessible generative AI systems with more than 1 million monthly users or visitors in California. The California Legislature says those providers must offer a free tool that lets users check whether image, video, or audio content was created or altered by the provider's system.

Providers also must embed latent provenance data into covered AI-generated content when technically feasible and reasonable. That data is supposed to identify the provider, the AI system and version, the date and time of creation or alteration, and a unique identifier, while users must be offered an option for a clear, visible disclosure.

Social Platforms Get A Bigger Job In January

The first phase focuses mostly on the companies creating AI systems, but the next phase reaches the platforms distributing the material. Under AB 853's legislative digest, large online platforms will have to detect compliant provenance data, show users whether it is available, and avoid knowingly stripping it beginning January 1, 2027.

The same legislation also sets a later timetable for AI hosting platforms and newer capture devices. Hosting platforms face disclosure-related requirements in 2027, while qualifying cameras, phones, and other recording devices first produced for sale in California will face provenance requirements beginning in 2028.

Becker told the Mountain View Voice that he became focused on the issue after seeing AI scams, deepfakes, and election misinformation spread online. He argued that embedded origin information could be harder to fake or remove than a simple visual watermark, though he acknowledged that enforcement and technical standards will keep evolving.

What Companies Risk For Ignoring The Rules

Violators can face a $5,000 civil penalty per violation, with each day of noncompliance treated as a separate violation. California's law allows the state attorney general, a city attorney, or county counsel to bring a civil action, giving local prosecutors a role in enforcing what began as a Silicon Valley-era response to synthetic media.