To the Editor:
All council seats on the dais belong to the people of Fillmore; not the swampy establishment at City Hall. Sadly, Mayor Austin, through his despicable actions last Tuesday, tried his best to circumvent a process that would allow the public to be part of the selection to fill the one seat vacancy on the council. Thankfully, there were barely three council members who felt compelled to defend a procedural due process. As for being open minded on future applicants, it seems the two swampy establishment council members have their minds made up, per their dialogue at the last meeting.
Mr. Holmgren is correct on one count, though. This endeavor will indeed be contentious: The People Vs. The Swampy Establishment.
Brian N. Sipes,
Fillmore

***

To the Editor:
Second Opinion
Re: Martin's Editorial
I promise not to further argue with Martin that the withdrawal from Afghanistan was of Trump’s design. I wish that we could have done better in logistics. Remember that the withdrawal was announced well in advance. Why some people waited until the last moment to leave, I do not know. Our government could not force them to leave earlier. It doesn’t make it any less disturbing.
I have a number of housecleaning comments: Yes, “Pence has a duty to protect the ‘football.’” The point was he knew he had to run for his life, and for the protection of that item. He didn’t think standing his ground was an option, given the conduct of the insurrectionists. January 6 was not just a bunch of “rowdy tourists.”
Martin’s lament that President Biden has driven the economy "into a ditch”. Except that the Biden Plan has been neither adopted nor implemented at this point. If inflation was his point, you don’t have to have an Economics degree to know that one inevitable result of the pandemic economic response was going to be inflation. It's better than letting people starve during the emergency.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says what it says regarding the debt. But please DO argue the “intent of the framers,” as you will encourage a much-needed review of the 2nd Amendment. No reasonable cognizant person debates whether to pay the bill after dining out. To not pay that debt is considered theft and you will be forever barred from the premises. Governments have the same rule. Got that, Mitch?
But it was the following paragraph in the Editorial that compelled me to respond:
“…This nation will not endure a Biden presidency. When this becomes widely obvious, we may hear the sound of 400-million American arms being unlocked. We should pray that our Christian Constitutional culture is maintained and respected."
I checked with Martin last week to ensure that I had read him correctly. He replied that the, "400-million" expression [was]as a hyperbolic metaphor for that half of the American citizenry profoundly concerned about the continued survival of our Republic." Your reply did not answer my question. When you say "American arms being unlocked" are you referring to actual weapons being readied to kill fellow Americans? You appear to be very close to endorsing that, and it's not for the first time. You are skilled so as to include a condition, "we may hear the sound" but the image is the same. You link, in just a few sentences, the suggestion that the Biden presidency should or may be cut short or terminated, and weapons would be justified. These thoughts have an extremely serious legal and social nexus.
You also link these thoughts of an armed protection of political values against President Biden (by "arms" or a "knife fight") to defend what you think are the "moral mandates" of Judaeo-Christian principles. This sort of demagoguery is foolhardy and dangerous. Say it often enough and people can become inured to its untruth, and to what that would actually look like. I will send you some photos of the aftermath of The Battle of Gettysburg, or some pictorials of the torture of the Inquisition, if it will illuminate the issue for you.
Prayer is fine in an effort to maintain respect for our “Christian Constitutional culture.” Unlocking arms and knife fights are not. I had assumed that you knew that the founding fathers were generally Deists, God-acknowledgers, though distinctly not Christian. They spoke of "God," "Lord," or "Creator," not Christ.
Conservatives and people who agree with you, Martin, seem to believe that God is a Republican who embraces all their political and religious beliefs. They know what God wants because it is - coincidentally, even miraculously - what they want themselves. Political arguments without threats of violence can be constructive, but to make Christianity your pony in that regard is cynically manipulative.
Kelly Scoles,
Fillmore

***

To the Editor:
How to fill the vacant council seat was discussed at last Tuesday night’s council meeting. The first choice to be made was, do they want to appoint someone to fill the seat until the next regular election next year (basically, a 1-year term) or go to a special election in April (which would fill the seat for the remainder of Ari’s term).
The special election would cost the city just shy of $90,000 so all four council member expressed an appointment as the preferred action. They have until November 16th to fill the vacancy. If they are unable to come to an agreement by then, it goes to the special election by default.
The first suggestion made regarding an appointment was to select Carrie Broggie that night. If they had done that, it would have been over. Carrie would have been a good choice;
• She’s had experience as a council member and as Mayor.
• She’s currently serving as the Chair of the Planning Commission.
• She has a calm personality and is very balanced.
• She doesn’t make the position political.
Carrie would have been a good choice. Both the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem agreed. But the two Marxists on the dais wouldn’t even consider it. They were both set on going through with a full appointment process, even though their “reasoning” was very weak. It was obvious from their reasons and from their dogged refusal to consider putting this behind the council last night that they have plans and will be putting up applicants themselves.
Since neither Lynn nor Christina would budge, Diane decided that this was not “a hill to die on.” Diane conceded to the full appointment process, so that’s what happens now.
The city will post the open seat today (10/13) and accept applications up until Oct. 21st. Whomever applies will go through the interview process;
• Each of the council members will provide two interview questions to the city attorney.
• She will compile them into a list of questions.
• The interviews will take place at a special council meeting on Tuesday, October 26th.
• Each applicant will be asked the same series of questions with a time limit set on responses.
• After all of the applicants have been interviewed, the council will open it up to a discussion amongst themselves.
• They will then nominate and vote on which applicant to select to fill the seat until November, 2022.
This will be a contentious process. Just deciding whether they should choose someone last night or go to a full interview process was causing a stalemate. Finding a candidate they can all (or, at least 3 of them) agree on will be very difficult. When this happens, I hope that Diane will feel that this is a hill to die on.
If they can’t come to agreement on the 26th, they’ve left it open to hold a few more special meetings prior to the deadline. No one wants to spend $90,000 to hold a special election, but we can’t let control of the council be taken by a Marxist majority with an extreme agenda or we will be headed down the same road we see the rest of the country on.
Tim Holmgren,
Fillmore

***

To the Editor:
Fillmore must fill the vacant seat left by the untimely death of Ari Larson. There are 3 options as outlined by Fillmore City Attorney, Tiffany Israel. These options are as follows:
1. City Council Members by majority vote may appoint someone to fill the vacant seat. The term for this appointee is 1-year until the next general election. Incurred cost would be minimal, if any to the City other than a change of placards, signage and other miscellaneous changes to identify the new councilmember. Previous council member Carrie Broggie was proposed. As a veteran council member, her appointment would minimize any cost and training. This option was tied by a 2 – 2 council vote.
2. City council agreed to invite potential candidates to apply for the open seat and go through a formal interview process. The posting by the City has already taken place and applications will be accepted until Thursday, October 21. The council will prepare 8 questions, 2 from each of the 4 members, and use the questions in vetting a candidate for consideration. This is done at a special council meeting on Tuesday, October 26. Again, the council must choose someone by majority vote, this is a closed vote and the public can view the interviews but cannot vote on a candidate. Council has until November 16 to fill the vacancy. If a majority vote cannot be made, a Special Election is the default option. Costs for this option would be nominal when compared to a Special Election.
3. If a majority vote still cannot be reached in selecting a new member, the last and most costly and time consuming is the Special Election. A cost of $90,000 includes but not limited to printing and mailing ballots and numerous city and county staff time. This would take place in April 2022 and would fill the empty seat for the remainder of Ari’s term of 3 years. Consider also that the 2022 elections will follow shortly in November 2022 where the residence will be able to exercise their customary vote for 2 seats coming available in 2022.
Comments by Fillmore Residents:
I feel it is too much money to have another election and you should go with appointing Carrie to the current position available. Thank you, Linda Root
Spend $90K or appoint someone now? Does the city have an extra $90,000 to essentially throw away? Appoint someone. Go for a person who is "like" Ari. How about some new blood for the council? Possibly a younger person who could represent all the newer families moving into Fillmore. Don't spend money when it is not necessary. Rhonda Taylor
I saw that the vacant counsel seat needs to be filled and if the current council members can’t decide on someone to replace Ari Larson, it will go to a special election in the spring. I also saw that the special election would cost $90,000 for the city of Fillmore. I personally can think of much better ways to spend 90k in our community and I hope the counsel can agree on someone sooner than later. For me I would hope we can find someone like Ari who wasn’t in it for political gain (on either side) but for the sake of the community of Fillmore. She will be missed. Anonymous
I was unable to attend or view the City Council meeting the other night. I did however read the minutes and was dismayed to see that two of the council members are unwilling to have any kind of compromise and would rather spend almost $90,000 of our taxpayer dollars to further their personal agenda. These two council members should be putting the community of Fillmore first.
I would hope some unity and bipartisanship will be exercised in the near future to avoid this catastrophic waste of money!! –Anonymous
To the Fillmore City Council -In a time where money is hard to come by, please be responsible and do what’s right for the community and avoid a special election. That money should go towards improving the quality of life for our residents and community, not pandering or drawing lines in the sand over fringe ideological differences. Appoint a candidate who is fair, open-minded and above all else, understands the constitution and the idea of representative government. Fillmore needs someone who is proud of his/her town and country, aware of its flaws but committed to pursuing the “American Dream” for all. Michael and Candace Ingram
Who in the City is volunteering to take a pay-cut if this goes to an election? I do not believe the council members who brought us the Pride Fair will agree to any reasonable candidate and we don’t have the money for an election. My recommendation is to reconsider and accept Carrie Broggie’s offer to fill in. She has a proven record of being fair and open minded. Respectfully, Annette Sula
From someone who loves Fillmore, if a consensus cannot be made at the open “cattle call”, the obvious remedy would be to reconsider Carrie Broggie, a known individual, fair and balanced. If this goes to a $90k Special Election due to loggerheads by the council, your agenda and intent for this City is crystal clear.
Dianne Sutton,
Fillmore