Political ads are normal and natural at this time, but the "hit piece" letter that was addressed to us regarding Neal Andrews was over the top.
We have watched the City Council meetings on numerous occasions. Andrews was not only present, but also his views on most issues were reasonable and articulate.
His travel on behalf of the City Council was all pre-approved by a majority of the council, so why the charge of lack of fiscal responsibility? Was the majority of the council being fiscally irresponsible when they asked him to attend those meetings?
The letter was signed by "John Snowling and the 122 officers, corporals and sergeants of the Ventura Police Officers Association." Was that a unanimous vote based on a voice vote or secret ballot? Was their disapproval of Andrews based on the specious charges leveled at him in their letter? Or was it based on his resistance to raising police officers' salaries in these financially difficult times?
We intend to vote for Neal Andrews, and we appreciate his valuable service to the City of Ventura. We feel it was grossly unfair of the Police Officers Association to characterize Andrews' eight years of service in such a negative way.
-- Bruce C. & Sandra S. Davison, Ventura