Letters to the Editor
April 2nd, 2009

To the Editor:
Why did the Piru Principal get demoted?
As many of you already know, on Friday, March 6, 2009 the Piru Elementary school principal was told by the superintendent Jeff Sweeney that this will be his last year as a principal. The parents of Piru School find it very disappointing that the district would consider such a drastic change without any consultation of the parents. For the first time in many years, Piru School has a principal who cares about our children. He is determined to make Piru School succeed. He has put great emphasis on academics which is reflected in the improvement in our test scores. Additionally, he has brought an increased awareness in the areas of exercise, health and nutrition, as well as many other things that enrich our children's lives. This is due in part of Mr. Durborow and his talented ability to think outside the box.
Why did Mr. Durborow get the demotion is the question many people are wondering. "Lack of confidence" is too broad of a statement. Could it be because Mr. "D" wants to make more positive changes, or is it because the academics are getting better even though Piru has the most English learners in the district? Maybe it's the fact that Mr. "D" has spent hours applying for grants to help the school but the grants aren't all spent in Piru? Maybe it's the fact that by going charter the district would lose over $2 million. Perhaps he was demoted due to the budget crisis - we don't know. But if the district is trying to cut back why don't they start at the district. Why does Sweeney need three Assistant superintendent’s assistants? There is something very wrong with this picture. "Lack of confidence" is just not enough for me.
Now let’s not forget about the school board members. Why do we even bother to have five members, wasting our tax dollars if they're going to do whatever Sweeney wants them to do. For your information, Sweeney is not the "Boss" YOU ARE! I know one thing for sure, and that is that none of them will get my vote again.
Concerned citizen

To the Editor:
At Tuesdays council meeting Measure I was on the agenda and prior to public comment Council member Conaway spoke of his distain for the measure wanting to go on "record" with all the bad things he says it will cause. Defeated Council member "it was the signs" Cuevas also spoke on all the bad things Measure I will produce and Fillmore will pay for voting the measure I in, I was involved with the North Fillmore Project in the early stages at the Store Front on Lemon Way along with the Great late Shirley Micarrlli who was greatly involved in the North Fillmore Project. Lots of Ideas were brought forward at these meetings with council members, residents, contractors and just everyday folks in attendance. But most of the public didn't really show support or non-support for this project, due to lack of communication, hard to understand notices posted by the city ect... Of course the City said they did everything they were required to by law, it would have been better had the notices had been written so everybody could understand them and there real purpose. The North Fillmore Committee tried to play catch up with the steam rolling the city council and developers, they were pushing the North Fillmore Plan through the way THEY wanted, not the way the PEOPLE wanted. The final plan was given to the North Fillmore Committee with ONLY a week to approve before it was voted on by the city Council when it was suppose to have 30 days to look it over and provide feed back on whether the city should or should not approve the final plan. The North Fillmore Committee DID NOT like the plan nor did they approve of it, but guess what, the council members at the time did and approved it. Now to my point, better late than never THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN we do not want high density housing, we want to keep beautiful rural area, we want less congestion. There are allot more places available around town to provide low to high end housing that already have streets, sewers, water and other services that the city maintains now, not new ones that the city can't afford to maintain. If Measure is going to cost me more that's OK buy me, I chose that, the people chose that, not the Developers handing council members golden beans in exchange for citizens quality of life. Council member Conaway said Measure I will cost the citizens around 300 thousand and higher sewer rates, maybe the council should have thought about this prior to all of the development we have seen for the past 10 years. During the council meeting well #9 was discussed and will cost the city 1.2 million when all done, it was needed because of new development, just think what 350 less homes will save when another well needs to be put in, do to over extending our supply with developers demands. We are all ready paying for 100 thousand dollars of new development, a street that goes nowhere, breaking water mains, the mother of all sewer drains, sewer plant, this list could go on forever, Let's learn live within our means, I know the new council will stand back and take a breath and look at what's best for OUR (not the developers/state) TOWN. Not all things please everyone but when THE PEOPLE speak then it is time to take notice and help fix the problem that has been created and learn that EVERYONE'S voice counts and not a select few. Heres a novel idea, fix all the towns problems first before creating new ones, and leave some space for our children's future to work with.
Tom Dawson
20 years North Fillmore

To the Editor:
As Measure I is being implemented, as per the will of the people, claims are being made by council member Conaway and former council member Cuevas that the voters were ignorant about what would happen if the measure passed. I disagree, Measure I and the future development of North Fillmore have been debated for a couple of years now; thoroughly discussed, openly and publicly, by the proponents and the opponents of Measure I. Public statements, both written and verbal, were made by Conaway and Cuevas and others on several occasions before the election was held. There was an opposing ballot statement for the voters to read before they made their decision. Conaway and Cuevas don’t seem to give us voters much credit.
It’s unfortunate that the public isn’t engaged in the decision making process before large sums of money are spent on plans and Environmental Impact Reports that paint a clearer picture of how a development will effect our quality of life. It’s after the plans are made and the EIR is done that the public, for all practical purposes, is brought into the picture and invited to workshops designed to sell them the project but not change it. The process needs to be changed. As council member Washburn suggests, the planning department and commissioners, council members, consultants, property owners, developers and the public, all participating from the start as I think some other cities do. It could save a lot of time, money and trouble.
Bob Stroh