Challenges board member's stance

To quote last weeks' article en- titled Environmental Report Stokes Unification Debate, "John Alamillo doesn't oppose unification but thinks the timing is inappropriate." Excuse me, but John Alamillo most emphatically opposes unification and has voted against its progress at every opportunity on the Pleas- ant Valley School Board.

Outgoing Superintendent Dr. Tom Dase has accurately stated that the district will receive an extra $6 million per year in State incentives to unify. The state provides addi- tional funding to unified school dis- tricts in its attempt to bring articu- lated, streamlined curriculum to all students.

Our two former superintendents were, actually, for unification. Former Superintendent Howard Hamilton sent a letter in support to the County Committee, very pro- unification.

The pro-unification train was al- ready going full speed ahead when former Superintendent Tom Dase was hired. The OUHSD decided to go for the bond on June 30, 2004, one year after the first petition was filed and the county committee gave it a thumbs up. In May 2004, OUHSD tried to exclude Camarillo entirely, by seeking permission from the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to create a special fa- cilities needs district, just for a new Oxnard high school. This was also two weeks after AB780 was unani- mously passed in the state Assem- bly and Senate, the bill that allowed us to decide locally whether to unify.

John Alamillo says the OUHSD will build a high school here for us. The OUHSD needs schools in Ox- nard to reduce the overcrowding there. They are looking to build new administration offices for them- selves, and at their last board meet- ing they discussed searching for the property to build it on. There was no mention of Camarillo.

Camarillo, as it always has been, is an extremely low priority for them. The OUHSD cannot say that unification has kept them from building another high school - uni- fication was already six years in the making by that point!

The bond that was passed here back in 2004 says "immediately build a new high school". We are now approaching 2007. It does not say where to build it, but the OUHSD ignores the mandate and causes all this unnecessary specu- lation just to defeat unification. Why? Camarillo is their highest performing school and the ADA and developers' fees ($3 million from Village in the Park) are more than funding their attorney fees and extending the time line - not unifi- cation!

What have been costly are the OUHSD's constant heel dragging, lawyer rebuttals, extended environ- mental impact studies, etc. Had they agreed to simply let the people de- cide to unify by putting it before them for a vote, we wouldn't have these ridiculous expenses.

Most voters in Camarillo sup- port unification. Mr. Alamillo's bul- lying tactics and lack of regard for the rights of Camarillo voters is why I am not voting for him November 7th and instead I'm supporting pro- unification candidates Patty Lerner, Jennifer Miller and Ron Speakman. Peg Hicks-Moore Camarillo