Here is her platform from her website:

We know that this century will not be like the last, and that the tools, which worked in the 1900’s will not work in this century. We need school board members who support preparing students for college or career, and know that the basics of yesteryear are just not the same basics for today. That is why we need to elect candidates who will promote “basics” for the 21st century. We need to build upon the fundamental reading, writing, and arithmetic skills and incorporate them with skills for the future. These skills include computer learning, vocational and technology training. These will help our students succeed-whether in college or career.

We need to not only incorporate a traditional approach to phonics, spelling, and math fundamentals, but build on the foundation- and promote an integrated approach that stresses problem- solving, critical thinking, an emphasis on literature, and hands-on math applications to the real world. Our students are only in each grade once. Each day in class matters. What students learn must stay with them. School is for life.

HOW DO WE MAINTAIN STRONG SCHOOLS?

Our schools are on the right track by increasing accountability, attracting and demanding quality teachers, raising standards, tightening discipline, promoting parental involvement and teaching students the basic skills they need to compete and prepare for college or career. To keep our schools on track we need strong partnerships. We need a school board, which will work with teachers and parents. Teachers need more influence over school policies. They are an integral part of the process. They cannot help improve schools if they do not have a seat at the table where important decisions are made.

Teachers, in partnership with parents, need more influence over developing priorities, academic curriculum, standards and discipline. Giving our teachers the respect they deserve, and promoting a partnership between the board, students, parents, and teachers will take the politics out of the classroom, and allow the school board to get back to the basics of improving our schools.

Our schools are our future. Schools must have the right tools to do their job. They must promote policies which remove obstacles to student achievement. This includes having safe, healthy classrooms. Schools must be staffed with adequate health care personnel. Classrooms must be equipped with the technology needed for modern learning. Furthermore, it means having students who know there will be zero tolerance for unacceptable behavior, and it means supporting drug and gang prevention programs. Adequate counseling staff must be provided to help students stay on the right track. It is difficult to learn if classrooms and buildings are overcrowded, schools and campuses are not safe, students are promoted before they have met the standards, or can’t succeed in school because they can not read or write the language.

Teachers must be supported to do what they do best – teach. Teaching students values for life and encouraging them to take responsibility for themselves is essential. a

WE MUST INSIST THAT BOARD MEMBERS PROMOTE COOPERATION TO MEET THE CHALLENGES AHEAD. ELECTING THE PARTNERSHIP TEAM WILL KEEP OUR SCHOOLS ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

WHY DOES THE VEHICLE NOT HAVE A CONFORMING PLATE? IS IT BECAUSE SHE IS A POLITICIAN SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE A PLATE LIKE US COMMONERS?

You raise a good point about the sign ordinance and I'd like to see further review of it. Yesterday, was the first of October and it still doesn't feel like their are any campaigns going on in the community.

I also missed one charity event that I would have gone to this passed month. Signs didn't sway my position on a lot of things, but sometimes they acted as a reminder about an upcoming event.

It's interesting the note that the majority opinion backing a sign ordinance was Justice John Paul Stevens the same Justice who wrote the majority opinion on eminent domain that has been resoundingly rejected by the public.

Unfortunately, he introduced equal treatment into the debate which treated commercial speech as the same as political speech. To me, the constitution clearly outlines free political speech while not saying anything about commercial speech at all. The idea that commercial speech is protected the same way political speech undermines free expression in campaigns or social causes.

It is also interesting to note that Moorpark has this ordinance and some individiuals are now complaining that their neighbors have four or five political signs in their yards and it makes their neighborhood look like a political truck stop. So by no means has quality of life been improved, just moved to your neighborhood.

I'm interested to see where this law goes from here.

The current legislation favors property owners at the expense of the working class.

If someone owns a large property they can put their views out. If they own a commercial property they can get their views out in a high traffic zone.

If someone owns no property such as a renter of a home they most likely will have their speech stopped by the property owners.

The current law was designed by the ruling class to lock in their ownership of the means of production.

Of course Elton Gallegly favors the law. He and his friends own the town. A rebellion by someone like Jill Martinez or any other candidate becomes impossilble.

Landed classes have always abused the laws to lock in their wealth and power while stopping any outside challenges. Why should that change now?

America was founded on free political speech. It is ironic that in the same area as the Reagan library your elected officials don't understand the difference between an exotic dancers free expression and a political campaigns.

Maybe your officials should have to be elected.

Where can I get a Davis bumper sticker?

Question here - perhaps for one of your bloggers from the City - Barbra Williamson maybe?

How can this sign ordinance be enforced? I still see garage sale signs every weekend and signs from two candidadtes in particular that are located on the "public right of way."

I like the idea of cleaning up the streets but how can the City of Simi possibly devote the time to enforce the ordinance?

If there is an illegal sign post it so we can all see!

The four that come to mind are:

Madera exit off 118 (Gallegly)

In front of gas station on Cochran & Tapo St. (Prenta)

Public right of way near McDonald's on Yosemite (Foy)

Kilaine & Reburta Lane (Gallegly)

Interesting,

One of my concerns that I raised on the sign ordinance had to do with this very issue. I wasn't totally convinced that this sign ban while treating commercial, political, and non-profit equally on paper would come out the same way when enforced.

I thought this ordinance would potentially embroil the city right in the middle of political campaign fights and it appears it's starting to happen as some signs were missed and some aren't on enforcement.

For political and non-profit, I would have liked to see the city create zones throughout the public right of way areas where signs could be placed during campaign season. I would have also requested a reduction of size and the total amount that could have be placed per zone, so there no longer is the gigantic billboard style signs.

That way, it would reduce enforcement to only certain areas instad of the whole city. It would also enable campaigns to get visibility, but not overwhelm the city with visual clutter on every corner.

My sign is on private property at Alliance Gas Station where my son works. The owner Ken put my signs on his property.

I have posted NO signs on public property! I have even told my supporters to not put them in parkways.

If someone sees that a sign that I have has been put on public property (unbeknownest to me) you are free to remove it and I apologize. Or e-mail me at tprenta@aol.com and I will immediately remove it myself.

One of my supporters put a sign in their hedge on their private property that could be misconstrued as public since it is adjacent, I assure you it is private property on their hedge. It is on Tapo Canyon and Township.

Dear Davis Devotee - just place the cursor on your name (above) click it and you will be taken to my website - look on the left for EMAIL. Click it. type your request, click SEND and Ill get back to you ASAP.

The sign ordinance was put in place for one reason and one reason only...to stop the profilation of BUSINESS signs in the right of way. The City council had so many complaints about the car dealerships, a certain stone company placing advertisement in the PUBLIC right of way. Even some of the Churchs were advertising Ipods if you came to their church. The council decided that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we were not going to allow business signs in the public right of way, then we need to treat everyone equal, that included (ourselves) all political signs. On the week days, public works takes down all visible signs in the right of way. I think there are some real creative candidates, Donna Prenta comes to mind, by placing magnetic signs on their cars. Its easy to see who is creative and who isn't....Scott LOL

Once again Barbra -

I like the idea of the ordinance. But having seen that some candidates still think they are above this law (I'm not speaking of Donna Prenta) and garage sale signs that have always polluted Simi Valley, I don't see how it can be enforced. I am not sure we have the manpower, or the willpower, to remove an objectionable sign - especially if it is one of Simi's ordained saints (i.e. Gallegly).

The city has seen a big difference since the ordinance has gone into effect, however, it takes ALL of us doing our part. This is a re-active, not a pro-active ordinance, so if you see a sign in the public right of way, call code enforcement (805) 583-6755 and they will remove it with a letter to the owner. Three letters constitutes a fine..(I think)

Councilmember, when I wrote the founding documents to our nation I valued freedom of POLITICAL speech above all others.

I am amazed that none of the members of the council are members of The Chamber of Commerce. If they were, why couldn't they clean up their own act? They could of aksed members not to place signs, or even gone around and picked up the signs. If I am not mistaked signs in the public right away have the legal standing of trash, which means anyone could of cleaned them up.

Saw the big honkin' sign for Farmer Foy by McDonald's. Isn't he the same guy who hung them on our street lights in the primary?

We'll see if the City boys or the Farmer boys ever remove it.

I absolutely agree on business signs, but feel signs related to non-profits or campaigns need greater deference and protection as they are in the marketplace of ideas and concern campaigns related to the public interest.

When political speech is banned, I believe government and to some extent public officials can afford to be less responsive to the needs of the people.

Campaign signs create name recognition in the public mind and hopefully draw people into the campaign process. Disabling this cuts off the starting point to review a candidate's point of view.

I have a good question for anybody who reads this topic. If I took a small sized American flag and put it in the public right of way to show my patriotism. I leave my name and address on it, would I be fined if I didn't remove it? :)

Do you think posting American flags in the public space is something that should be stopped and the "perpetrators" fined?

Mr.Blough the same American flag stunt doomed the anti-gang dress code at Valley View about 10-15 years back.

There should be some regulation in the public interest with regards to campaign signs. I would hate to see signs up years in advance.

But with that being said we just got rid of elections in Simi Valley.

Maybe the council members should be elected, not selected. Maybe of the council members thought back to how hard it was to get their names out there they would see it in a different way.

Of course 3 out of the 5 council members have never run in a close election so what do they know about democracy. I sense a ballot proposition coming on...

It will be interesting to see if the city bothers to enforce an ordinance whose constitutionality is - at best - doubtful.

The car doesn't have a blank plate.

Dennert 'shopped it out so the driver has some privacy, while still drumming up coverage of their candidate's campaign.

Mr. Regulation--

Well, the major difference between the Valley View example and mine is we are not children and I still have shudder a bit when I hear arguments that basically say the government knows best, especially on matters of speech.

When government limits public information and undermines the name recognition of lesser candidates and causes the marketplace of ideas suffers as no one can identify a name and combine it with a person's rationale for running.

I totally agree we need some regulation such as timeframes and the concept of campaign/non-profit zones, just not an outright ban.

Well said Scott. I think you should put that statement "When government..." on a sign, and post it around town. I know a few sign companies.

The issue though, isn't whether it's constituional to ban signs - it's not. It's whether anyone will sue the city over it.

Someone should.

Gee, I didn't realize we had so many scholars in our community. Everyone SEEMS to know the law....The city has the right to ban signs in the public right of way...and it can't pick and choose which sign,i.e. non-profit, political, business, its either all or nothing. the city can not regulate "content" of a sign....

There is plenty of precident that shows that legislative restrictions on political speech are very limited compared to those on commercial speech.

try Vincent v City of Los Angeles (U.S. Supreme Court case), upholding a complete ban on signs on public property in the right of way. It actually involved signs for a city council candidate...

Here is a bigger threat to free speech. Peter Foy's campaigners (including a bitter well-known Simi Valley businesswoman) are THREATENING local business owners if we dare put up a Dantona sign in our window. She went as far as to say it was illegal in the City. Take note that the Foy Fascists are on the loose and that we do not take your threats lightly.

Please let us know any details about those threats. The way to make them back off is to come down hard and fast on them. With the split that Foy's extremist tactics generated amongst the Party, his henchmen are working overtime to keep their members in line. Doesn't look like it'll work but they may be more desperate than we know.

Hi Rio--

I have no intentions of suing the city over this. As a society we are lawsuit happy as it is and I don't want to add to it. Besides, as Anon pointed out by citing Vincent, which outlines the legality of the city using such power in a content neutral way.

I just disagree. I think content neutrality is a myth that veils speech suppression.

My point for bringing this up was to spark a discussion to find out if others who care enough about local politics to write in blogs felt the same way I did.

Remember, the Supreme Court also says it's fine for local government to take your property through eminent domain, something the public resoundingly rejects as do I.

On the Vincent case, please don't just read the affirming decision, read the dissent as well. I found the disagreement between the Justices actually pretty interesting.

Six or eight months ago I would have agreed that Vincent was the end all, but then last June Randall v Sorrell was announced and I think it left a chink in the armor so to speak. I could be wrong, but for the first time, the Supreme Court said campaign contributions limits could be set too low as to undermine free campaign speech during a campaign.

While not a direct contradiction, this represents an opening that was not addressed by Vincent.

Could state limitations be set so strictly as to short circuit the campaign system?

With the continued decline in interest, political volunteerism, and public participation, I think we need to evaluate every barrier that undermines participation in a way that hurts our system.

Hey local business owners!

Here's an interesting and new fun idea to entain the readers of this blog or the federal courts:

Utilize all of those great expensive security cameras and the vcrs to document any harassment and political intimidation you receive for having a candidate's sign in your window or on your property. You could provide the tape (hopefully with sound) as evidence in court or - if you do not like lawyers and judges - maybe share it with this blog, so we could all have a good look at those of our neighbors oppose freedom of expression and private property rights.

Blog visitors could then vote on which of the video stars should be nominated for an award as "best performance in a role as an intimidating thug."

Just a thought to add a new dimension to the upcoming "silly season", but it would be interesting to see who might take me up on the idea.

Maybe business owners wouldn't get harrassed if people could get their message out.

Barbra, what about making a sign window for non-profits, businesses, and candidates thirty days before an election?

Most business owners won't bother making signs if they can only use them twice every two years. Even if they do we only need to deal with the bother for 30 days tops.

Wouldn't that avoid the content neutral trap?

I'd support that sort of timing proposal in a minute to maintain content neutrality. Good one.

The ordinance has nothing to do with threats from those who believe they are above the law. Free speech only counts for her candidate - nobody else's. She even lied saying she worked for the City. She does not. But she is an elected official - and a complete embarrassment.

This is America, not China, not Cuba, not the Middle East. She should be ashamed and replaced.

To make it fair to Foy and his campaign can you describe this person in any details such as a name?

Personally, I am hoping for a more entertaining solution: a video from a security camera at one of these merchants (if it exists) that would provide the ENTIRE COMMUNITY with a good look at one kind of
parasite preying on it.

Just saw a cool magnetic sign for Steve Gould
eye catching!! got to get him back on board- he will keep the peace on the board and work will
get done!!

Post it!

Just saw a cool magnet sign on a car- red, white, and blue
Elect Steve GOULD Simi Valley School Board!!

Saw Steve Gould at Chamber of Commerce candidate
forum and democrat club- a down to earth good guy
with common sense. he is a go-getter. He knows what is going on and I heard good comments from
principals and parents who know him from 2000 run on board. Vote Gould!! he has a very informative
website at home.earthlink.net/~sgould93065