Supervisor Piepho is ‘doing a great job’
Dear Editor:
I find it both sad and inappropriate that your paper continually bashes Supervisor Mary N. Piepho. It is a shame that a woman who makes 200 decisions a day only gets recognized for a single one in your paper. Her decision to get rid of the R7A and Zone 36 committees was an excellent move. These people have been in violation of the Brown Act for some time and their meetings were not run according to Robert’s Rules nor in a professional manner.
The people who were removed from this committee need to keep in mind that they are merely volunteers, appointed to do what is best for their community. When they stop doing the right things, it is up to a supervisor with guts, professionalism and honesty to remove them and appoint people who will do a better job.
I suggest that your paper start printing facts regarding the supervisor. In addition, I suggest you don’t give a voice to people with wounded pride and a battered ego. That’s what being involved in public offices is all about. I think the former committee members need a thicker skin and, quite frankly, they need to move on.
The supervisor deserves a lot more than flowers for bringing about the wonderful changes she has made in the District 3 communities. I support Supervisor Piepho–I voted for her and she is doing a great job. Maybe your paper should try to interview her and get the facts instead of printing meaningless letters from a biased, terminated committee.
Leonard Blake, Danville
Still waiting for answers
Dear Editor:
What is truly unfortunate is that Supervisor Piepho would prefer to continue the dialogue in the media, obfuscating and giving no answers to repeated questions from the old R7A and Zone 36 members, rather than discussing these issues with us face to face. In her lack of response to our inquiries we can only assume that nothing warranted our dismissal or she simply doesn’t know. We were not dismissed by the Board of Supervisors; the board simply followed District 3’s recommendation, an action that a number of them, we believe, now regret.
Supervisor Piepho promised to appoint committees that would provide broader representation for Alamo. She reduced R7A from seven to five members, tried to reduce meetings from monthly to quarterly, and even appointed the same married couple to both committees. Not to take anything away from them, but is this broader representation? Why does Supervisor Piepho not know that the old committee members have publicly offered the new committees all the help they need?
The dismissed committee members are no longer under the supervisor’s control nor are we constrained by the Brown Act. We can demand from the county whatever documents we need to make sure Alamo Parks is run efficiently. The new committee members are Alamoians just like the old committee members; we will all focus on what is good for Alamo, not necessarily what is good for the supervisor or the county staff.
Randy Nahas, Alamo
