Dear Editor,
            Shame on you, Berndt Leifeld:
            On July 17, 2004, I wrote to Berndt after reading the Olive Press story concerning the voting for the Amendment (excluding reservoir land) to the Large Parcel Bill in Albany.  As I recall, the bill was tabled as it came up to vote.
            This bill would have helped Olive, and to say I was devastated was putting it mildly.  Again, Olive loses.  I felt Mr. Leifeld should have been present in ALBANY, as Jeremy Wilber was, to fight for his community, not just hire others do his work.  He has tried to say he knew nothing about the bill before it was passed, yet there is record of him "seeming to remember something" about this,  but again, he never followed through.
            My letter of July 17 was to criticize our Town Supervisor for what I felt was poor job performance.  As a public servant, he needs to be accountable for his actions or lack thereof.  I wanted to SHOUT to Berndt... that he should do... "some work for a change you just might know something for a change."  That was in response to his "I don‚t know" about the vote in Albany - I felt he should "try finding out when they vote - call them the day before."
            I felt that "the job is too, too much for you to handle.  There is too much at stake."  I asked you to "stop blaming everyone else" and yes, I even suggested that it was time for you to "retire and take your staff with you."  I was angry.  VERY ANGRY when I wrote this letter. 
            I signed this letter Angry Olive Resident, and not with my name, for fear of reprisals.  I guess my fears were realized, but by the wrong individual.  You had the audacity to take my unsigned letter, and a hand written voucher that had been submitted by the person you thought wrote this letter, and make a comparison. 
            End of story - in your mind, you had the "guilty party" and you were determined to do something about it.  Paula Minew has been doing the police car maintenance for years.  All of a sudden you decide it would be better to "rotate"
these services to the other businesses in town.  In your words, "share the wealth."  Reprisal?  What else could it be?
            When news of your assumption that Paula had written this letter came back to me, I met with you to come forward and let you know it was NOT Paula, but myself, that wrote the letter.  By your own account, you showed my letter and Paula‚s voucher to several people, including a couple whom you stated do this kind of comparison "for a living" and they all agreed that there were similarities.  You never once faced Paula and asked her to her face if she wrote it.  And you never once considered that Paula had just buried her mother two weeks prior to this letter coming out and probably had a few other things on her mind. 
            When I admitted it was my letter, you were explosive in your response.  I don‚t think many would believe that you could behave the way you did that morning, throwing papers around the desk, yelling and finally stomping out of the room and ending the meeting.  You left me even more fearful than I had been when I wrote the letter. 
            You did call Paula and apologized to her.  Did you also retract your assumptions to all those you blatantly insinuated her involvement with this?  From what I am now hearing, it‚s possible you still don‚t believe that she is NOT involved.  In fact, I‚ve recently heard that you still insist that she had something to do with it, and that I couldn‚t have written this letter!   
            It‚s because of that Œrumor‚ I am again, publicly stating that I AM the person that wrote the original letter to Berndt Leifeld on July 17, 2004.  And yes, it was "unsigned" and it was critical of his, in my opinion, complacent management of our town.  It‚s time EVERYONE knows that Paula Minew did NOT write this letter - and does not deserve to be singled out for it‚s content.  It‚s time our town started paying attention to how town business is being conducted.  More time should be spent working on the problems facing our town than using political muscle to retaliate against criticism. 
                                    Kathy Kelly
            Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
            Let‚s all step back, take a deep breath and look at the shape of things in the Town of Olive.  In my opinion, under the current Democratic Administration, we have: no cell tower, a closed road and dam; controversy with a police commissioner‚s status, and taxes increased over fifty percent.
            What are our elected officials doing?  It seems to me that they are pointing fingers in more directions than a weathervane in a windstorm.  Talk about running for cover!
            I feel that rather than "too little to late" petitions from Councilman Bruce LaMonda, (who seems to be the point man in every paper on the tax issue) the Town Board dropped the ball BEFORE this legislation was passed.  Perhaps more attention to detail by the board would have resulted in a different outcome for Olive residents and taxpayers.
            The Olive Town Board should be contacting other elected officials and working out solutions to our problems rather than running hither and yon trying to "shift the blame."
Olive T. Ruth
West Shokan, NY
Editor‚s Note: We have been inundated with false-name letters of late. Many, we suspect, are from the same man. In the spirit of the previous letter, we print this one in the week. But no more. Please, use real names.
           
Dear Editor,
            The Onteora School Board chose to enact the Large Parcel Bill that was meant to correct wide swings in tax assessment. Instead it created larger swings in assessment. Some people in Olive received tax bills that were 60 to 120% higher than last year. Next year, when the Large Parcel Bill is amended or rejected, other towns will experience shock waves of tax spikes and valleys.
            The only way to fairly equalize assessments would be to have a current re-assessment of all six of the towns within the Onteora School District. About half of them, including Olive and Shandaken, have not had recent evaluations. The Onteora School District, and any other school district, already possesses the legal right to re-assess towns within the school tax district. If the District has entered the business of tax assessment, it should go all the way: Each house, no matter where it is, should be assessed using the same formula. That is the only fair way to "equalize" taxes. Since the District already had that legal right, why did they choose to hurt Olive and benefit Woodstock and Shandaken by enacting the Large Parcel Bill? They already had the ability to equalize taxes and never did it.
Mark Merriweather
Krumville, NY

Dear Editor,
            The following is a letter to Senator Bonacic...
            I read your "News and Views" news letter regularly and find it quite interesting and informational. However, I don't recall any item or article in which you celebrate the "Large Parcel" legislation but I do understand that you were one of two sponsors. I believe the other was Kevin Cahill. Am I correct so far?
            Let me see if I have this fairly interpreted;
    NY City owns a very large reservoir in the Town of Olive and Town of Hurley.  This reservoir sits on property that is taxed by the Onteora School District. The Town of Olive residents have traditionaly paid a lower [school] tax than surrounding town residents due to the tax "contribution" by NYC. The Towns of Woodstock and Shandaken now pay  a lesser tax than they did in prior years because  the "Large Parcel" adjustment allows these two towns to benefit from the large NYC tax which is derived from land in Olive and Hurley that cannot be developed or used to generate taxes. The Onteora School Board opted to impliment the Large Parcel Act which caused my school tax for  the current year to soar 68.75%. The next thing one knows is that the County Legislature will decide to spread the NYC Real Estate tax among the other [poor] towns [like Kingston, Marble- town or Rosendale].
            If you had anything to do with this bit of craziness; thank you so much. If you did not, I would appreciate your denial or to what extent you participated.
            My comment on the Large Parcel thing is that I/we do not think a School Board should have the authority to "juggle" the tax liability(s) and make life more pleasant for those who live outside the town [and] conversely more miserable for us who live] where the large parcel resides. As I/we see it, NYC will continue to be assessed the same tax but the Onteora School Board in it's wisdom can spread that portion a little more equitably [as in Socialism].
            Please tell me what I am missing and/or that  I "doth protest too loudly".
            Are you running for re-election in 2004 ?? We are already "sharpening up our horns" for the Olive Onteora School Board members. They make Benedict Arnold look like a Patriot. Or... secede from the Onteora School District and form our own.
Glenn T. Anderson        
Olivebridge, NY

Dear Editor,
            Today, I sent this letter to the Governor, Commissioner of Education Mills, Chancellor of the Board of Regents Bennett, Senators Bruno, Bonacic and Larkin, Assembly member Silver, Cahill and Casale, and School board president D'Orazio:
            I am writing to you to about my concerns over the "large parcel law" that was passed last year by the State Legislature. I realize this is a long letter and I appreciate the time you or more likely, your staff members are devoting to reading it.
            How ironic that a reservoir picture appears on the school's homepage. [The italics sentence was only in the letter to the school board president.] When the large parcel bill was passed, we learned that the new law would include NYC reservoirs, and if the school district decided to adopt it, it would cause a huge increase in taxes in the Town of Olive, the town that contains most of the Ashokan Reservoir lands. Olive is in Ulster County, and is a member of the Onteora School District, along with the Towns of Woodstock, Shandaken, Hurley, and small parts of Lexington and Marbletown.
            The School Board conducted a couple of public hearings that were well-attended; the majority of folks in attendance, besides elected officials from the various towns, were from the Town of Olive, and of course all were opposed to adopting the large parcel bill. However, the school board decided to adopt the bill this year, and when the school tax invoices arrived, Olive residents were hit with a 56% increase. To someone who attended those meetings, is a graduate of Onteora High School and has roots that go back to 1790 in the Town of Olive, it comes as no surprise that the school board adopted the large parcel provision. It was clear from the demeanor of the board at the public hearings that their minds were made up, the public hearings were for show only. It seemed to me they regarded the Olive residents who attended the hearings as ignorant, non-elite, and rather scary. At the same time, they believed the large parcel somehow corrects "inequity" between the towns ˆ oddly, given the situation, between expensive, erudite Woodstock and cheap, low brow Olive.
            I am an education professor, and these issues are not unfamiliar to me. Equity is much in fashion in education circles. Rumor has it that NYC and the problems of school aid equity created most of the State budget delay. It is a term bantered around when discussing resource distributions between suburbs, cities and rural areas; upstate and downstate; poor schools and rich schools; the list goes on and on. I always wonder when I hear these discussions how far one should push the concept. It is nice in idealistic terms to strive toward equity -- all in the education field see it as a worthy goal -- though it is somewhat hard to achieve in a capitalist society ˆ but does it extend to equity from student to student within the school? Does Olive have fair representation on the athletics teams? Are Olive kids equally represented in advanced classes? On the cheerleading squad? On grading distributions? On receiving graduation awards? I‚m only going from anecdotal evidence ˆ I guess if I FOILED I could find out for sure (I suspect the Board will never voluntarily give out the data) -- but from my experience, the answer is "probably not."
            Olive is my hometown, and nearly all of my family lives there, and has lived there, for generations. For 100 years Olive has given water to New York City. Our ancestral lands were stolen from us to make way for the Ashokan Reservoir. Today, we live with that beautiful artificial lake; it is both a blessing and a curse. First, we still mourn, in vivid memories passed down from generation to generation, the loss of our lands and the decimation of our history. It is the breathtaking and bittersweet watery grave of our past. Second, there has been less development in Olive than there might have been had the Esopus Valley been left alone, to take its natural course of growth. To be sure, we enjoy the pristine environment that the Reservoir, and its land restrictions, has protected. At the same time, this has prohibited much business from locating in the town, and although the Reservoir has created some employment, it has taken away many more jobs. As a result there is not as big a tax base as our neighbors have. Third, we confront, on a daily basis, closed roads and detours, because of threats to the watershed in the aftermath of 9/11/01.
            These inconveniences are hardly a new thing. Never a morning person, I still remember the long detour of my high school bus that happened more than 25 years ago. That time it was for a more benign reason than terrorism, though it was still a dangerous situation. The Traver Hollow Bridge on NYC's Route 28A, which links the hamlets of West Shokan and Boiceville, had to be closed because pieces were falling off, something that was discovered after a school bus went over it. My three mile trip transformed into 20 miles. Several times our bus was sent back home, because we left West Shokan so early, and arrived at the school after the determination was made to close due to snow. New York City was in dire financial circumstances at that time, so once again no one in power cared about the rural folks in the Town of Olive. It took three years and a lawsuit by local community members before the bridge was rebuilt and my short bus ride was restored.
            I have a house in Samsonville in the Town of Olive, built on land my parents gave me. It is a weekend residence, as I must live in the Capital District to find appropriate professional employment. Obviously, I am a fortunate person, and the absurd tax increase will not bankrupt me, although I still must dip into hard-earned savings to pay for it (and with the recent increase, my school tax bill for Onteora is now more than three times as large as in Castleton, where I'm proud to say my district is Schodack Central Schools in Rensselaer County). But I know many Olive residents who are not weekenders like me (albeit a hometown weekender). They may not be writing to you as I am, but I want to be their voice. There are senior citizens on fixed incomes. There are couples with mediocre jobs struggling to raise families. There are old timers who are land rich but cash poor who face astronomical tax increases. Why should they have to move entirely or sell some of their land to developers (and non-native weekenders) to pay for the outrageous school taxes? Is not intact land in rural areas something worth preserving? Don't local people deserve to stay in their hometown? Do Town of Olive residents have to take another indignity because they are host to a NYC reservoir? Why does the biggest beneficiary, Woodstock, or any of the other towns deserve to benefit from having the reservoir in the district? What have residents of their towns given up as a result of its presence? What was the legislature thinking when they passed this unfair law, and allowed a biased school board to make this important decision?
            I have not addressed the other issue, which is not really related but adds to the indignity of this enormous tax increase. In 2001-02, on average OCS spent 23% more per student than did all NYS public schools ($15,090 to $12,265). In 2002-03, an article in the Kingston Daily Freeman reports that OCS spent $15,538.15 per student. District Business Administrator Snyder is quoted: "We are the second largest geographic school district in the state and you have neighborhood schools, which means they are spread out." He doesn't directly state that as being the cause of the high costs, but the article follows his statement by reporting that Onteora's costs for transportation are $1,090 per student, which is the highest in the county. Even in the unlikely event that OCS has transportation costs of $1,090 and other districts have a cost of zero, that still leaves more than half of the difference in expenditure unexplained.
            For help the article turns to School Board Trustee Eisenberg. He is quoted: "I actually like where we're spending our money as opposed to where we're not spending our money. We [sic] much heavier on the instruction." So then I guess he is saying the higher costs are not from transportation? Let's return to the data. In 2002-03, according to NYS Education Department School Report Cards, per student instructional costs at OCS were $8,068 for general education and $24,906 for special education, compared to $6,649 and $15,575 at similar schools, or $6,968 and $15,712 at all public schools in NYS.
            How about at three Ulster County peers? At New Paltz, they were $6,801 and $16,274; at Rondout Valley, they were $7,171 and $17,547; and at Saugerties, they were $5,945 and $15,816. So, yes, instructional costs are higher. (Duh.) But why? Is OCS better than the peers? Better than NYS Education Department-defined similar schools? Better than all public schools in NYS? Or even somehow different?
            I looked quickly through comparison data to see if any numbers jumped out at me. OCS has a limited English proficiency population that is 1% of the students. This compares to .8% at Rondout Valley, 1.7% at New Paltz, .5% at Saugerties (statewide, 6.8% of students are LEP). OCS has a free-lunch eligible population of 14.4%, compared to 11.4% at Rondout Valley, 13% at New Paltz, or 13.4% at Saugerties (statewide the figure is 37.7%).
            The attendance rate at OCS is 93.3%; it is 93.4% at Rondout Valley, 94% at New Paltz, or 94.5 at Saugerties (statewide: 92.3). The suspension rate at OCS is 1.7%; at Rondout Valley it is 8.4%; at New Paltz it is 6%; at Saugerties it is 3.9 percent; and statewide it is 4.7%. At OCS, 3.7% of students dropped out of school; at Rondout Valley 4% did; at New Paltz it was 1.8%; at Saugerties it was 5.4%; statewide it was 7.3%. The proportion of students classified as having disabilities was 14.6% at OCS, 11.8% statewide, 16.3% at Rondout Valley, 13.9% at New Paltz, and 9.8% at Saugerties.
            Tentative conclusions I would draw from these proportions are that students at OCS and the peers are not as needy - they are much less likely to not be proficient in English, or to be economically disadvantaged, and so eligible for a free lunch, than students statewide. Also, OCS is less likely to suspend a student, and Rondout Valley and New Paltz are more likely to suspend a student than schools statewide. (Whether this is because all the students at OCS are angels or because the school tolerates inappropriate behavior is not answered by the data.)
            Regardless, these numbers do not answer what might be driving the higher instructional costs. Here is another data category: in terms of a breakdown of staff, OCS had 352: 60% are teachers (211), 9% are non-teaching professionals (9%) and 31% (110) paraprofessionals. For Rondout Valley, the total is 340; 64% teachers (217); 11% non-teaching professionals (36) and 87 paraprofessionals (26%). For New Paltz, the total is 261; 67% teachers (174); 11% non-teaching professionals (29) and 22% paraprofessionals (58). For Saugerties, the total is 306; 70% teachers (215); 7% non-teaching professionals (20) and 23% paraprofessionals (71). Statewide, there were 217,739 teachers (64%); 40,823 non-teaching professionals (12%); and 84,072 paraprofessionals (25%).
            Assuming that paraprofessionals mean teacher's aides, a part of those higher instructional costs are coming from the larger proportion of "paraprofessionals" at OCS than at the peers or statewide. Which, I guess, is explained in this quote from the article: "Trustees also said special education costs, at $2,590 per student, include work that provides assistance in regular classrooms as part of long-term planning in the district." The problem with this quote is that the number $2,590 is wrong, by a lot. It is probably just an editing error, but who knows. The actual figure for special education costs, per student, was $24,906 in 2001-02.
            Then Pupil Personnel Director Boyce is quoted: "The consultant teachers and teaching assistants offer support to the students without disabilities. They maintain a high level of instruction." No facts are given in the article to support the district's and Ms. Boyce's assertions, and unfortunately, I have only anecdotal evidence with which to evaluate the information. But, based on conversations with regular education students in the school, and also from my educational background, I think this is stretching the truth. Sure, having one or two or a few extra adults in the classroom probably helps the teacher, that's a no brainer. But how much regular education students actually get out of aides that are hired to help students with disabilities is debatable.
            And, sadly, how this justifies OCS spending $9,331 per student more on special education than at similar schools in the state remains unanswered. Simply put, this is a very out-of-touch school board and administration. The district dealt with two divisive issues recently: closing the West Hurley Elementary School and the large parcel law, given those decisions and these figures, is it any wonder that the school budget was voted down twice this year, and one incumbent board member was resoundingly defeated?
            I attended town meetings, and I apprehensively watched the events as they unfolded in the newspaper. I cannot register my disapproval by voting on the OCS budget or in the school board election, since my legal residence is Castleton (is that taxation without representation?), but I am not willing to sit by and watch while Olive's land is stolen once again. No one has the right to take money from the pockets of Olive residents and call it redistribution or equity. In my world that's called theft, and by any definition it is a crime. I am left with no choice but to refuse to pay my Onteora school tax bill this year.
Gina Giuliano, PhD
Castleton, NY

Dear Editor,
            On Thursday night September 9, our County Legislature, passed by a significant margin, a memorializing resolution, that requests our Federal legislators to implement Congressional Bill HR1322. This legislation is entitled "The Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act" and would require companies to restore the medical benefits that were in effect when their employees retired. This legislation would insert a requirement in the ERISA regulations that now only protects pensions, but excludes health benefits. The memorializing resolution was originally submitted by County Legislator James Maloney (R-I-C) and was approved on a bi-partisan basis (28 yes, 4 against and 1 abstention). The winning margin is important, in that it demonstrates, that our county legislators acknowledge that thousands of our retirees and surviving spouses, in this area, both Republicans and Democrats, are being adversely impacted by the health care costs that are being shifted on them increasingly each year. For those whose pension income is not adequate, it is difficult to absorb this new burden, when they had the right to assume that their health care costs would be covered after retirement. This is particularly onerous on surviving spouses, whose pensions may be half of what their deceased spouse received. Additionally, IBM pensions have had no significant cost of living adjustments in the past 20 years and the buying power of the dollar has depreciated by almost 50 percent. As an aside, the present CEO of IBM, is projected to receive a pension of over 8 million dollars annually. This particular pension should be adequate to handle any health premium cost shifts.
            This clearly is not a partisan issue, but responds to the plight of our residents, some of whom may eventually be forced to utilize our over burdened Medicaid system. The Democratic Minority Leader, David Donaldson, had also submitted a like resolution and a merged resolution was enacted. The actions by of all of the Democrats and the large majority of the Republicans who supported this resolution are commendable and Ulster voters should acknowledge their efforts.
            We will now request that our U.S. Senators submit legislation like HR1322, in the U.S. Senate.
            Addition Federal legislation will also be necessary to restrict the perverse ability of corporations to reduce payments of health benefits and create imaginary revenue. The Wall Street Journal recently published a detailed article on this subject and referred to this phenomena as a corporate "Cookie Jar" and is used when they wish too enhance the appearance of their earning reports. Accounting games are also played by corporations with the employee pension funds that are in reserve for retiree pensions and create what is called "Vapor Profits." In fact, in the past four annual reports, IBM's profits contained almost five billion dollars in "Vapor Profits" which represented 17 percent of their reported profits.
            The spiraling health care costs in the U.S. will ultimately require a national effort to optimize our inefficient system and the bi-partisan effort demonstrated last week by our county legislators, is a model.
Art Richter
Benefits Restoration Inc.
New York State Director
Kingston, NY

Dear Editor,
            The Onteora administration and board of education are facing two very big issues - death and taxes.
            Taxes - the large parcel vote. I have heard each member of the Onteora board of education state they believe the large parcel legislation should not be forced on school districts. If this is the case, why did the majority vote yes? Why did the Onteora BOE put themselves in the position of redistribution of the tax base. If they believed the legislators put them in this position and this is not their responsibility, they should have voted no. Very simple!
            Death - Kevin J. O'Connor. Where does the Onteora board of education draw the line between the safety of our children and protecting the school district from admitting to negligence and wrongdoing? This is a question I believe each board member needs to ask themselves. I thought a board of education's responsibility was the safety and education of our children. If the board and administration believe their job is protecting the school district, I wonder how they sleep at night. How are we teaching our children to take responsibility for their actions if the adults they look up to, don't do the same? I have heard each member speak of the safety of our children many times at meetings and in the local newspaper. In death and taxes, their words don't support their actions.
            The Onteora board of education and administration need to be reminded of the diatric goals listed on the agenda of each meeting, which are: Increase community input, awareness and support of district issues through effective communication. Formulate a budget and governance structure based on effective use of resources and district needs that the community can support. Foster a safe, respectful and healthy school culture. Maybe we should request each board member and administrator write these goals ten times each.
            If the philosophy and policy of this board of education is not standing up for what they believe (redistribution of taxes is not their responsibility) and protecting the school district from admitting to negligence and wrongdoing (Kevin's death) I ask the parents of Onteora children, is this a board you want watching out for the safety of your children? I would not. I want a new board and a new policy.
Simone Ennis
Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
            The Onteora Townships Taxpayers Association greatly appreciates the time and hard work of Jeremy Wilber and the Woodstock Town Board for their appearances before the Onteora School Board. Their efforts helped bring about a fairer distribution of tax responsibility in the school district. Thank you.
Joe Doan, president
Sam Mercer, vice-president
Onteora Townships
Taxpayers Association
Woodstock, NY

Dear Editor,
            The article in the September 2 editionabout the bear being "moved away" was very interesting, but made one major mistake. It describes the incident that happened and the larger issue of the bear and people encounters. But it does not offer any solutions! It should be common knowledge now what needs to be done to protect both people and bears. But like our political process, ignorance still seems to abound. Please do not just write articles detailing bear problems, but also give us some concrete solutions. Your article stated, "the problem was simple. A growing bear population on the one hand, and a growing human population on the other. The result is a marked increase in bear/human interactions. And a marked increase in the lack of knowledge of what to do when one encounters a bear." So, please tell us vividly, boldly and simply (as obviously many people still don't know) what to do to prevent these incidents. Not leave out food, bear proof garbage cans etc. Unless we continually educate people on what to do, the bears will suffer and ultimately so will we. We are all connected, whether it's obvious or not. Its ultimately not the bears who are the problem, but us. One solution offered was extending the hunting season. Is this the most enlightened way to deal with this? Just kill them? We can do better. We must do better.
James Mongan
Mount Vernon, NY
           
Dear Editor,   
            Hello and Welcome to Tax Answer Fone brought to you by New York State, Your Local School District and Your Town Goverment!
            If you know the name of the Tax you are interested in paying, please Press the "I Want to Pay that Tax Too!" button now! If you would like to browse through our selection of Taxes press the "You think your Tax Is High...You Should See Mine!" button now. For information on proposed and new creative taxes and fees, press the "Now, Were Gonna Stick It To You Good!" button now. If you would like to hear our most creative tax pick of the week, please Press the "FU!" button now.
            Feature 1: You have chosen to browse through our selection of Taxes. Beginning Tuesday enjoy our special Double Feature! See the wildly talked about "The Tax Collector Always Rings Twice" starring James Gandolfini as the Tax Collector. (After coping with pain over their right eyebrows for months, the Legislature's resident neurolgist orders an MRI.) Find out if this cures the sounds of cash registers ringing in their heads! Or does the legislature just want a group vacation in Bali????? Showtime at 7:30 a.m.! Arrive on time! Due to the surprise ending, no one is admitted after the movie begins.
            Feature 2: "Dinner with the Auctioneer." Mario Cuomo comes out of retirement to star in this foot stompin flick which follows at 6 p.m. Once again, we see the Tax Collector in the classroom of a creative writing class writing drafts of new taxes and fees. What is it that he is holding under his other arm? Could it be the films from his first MRI that showed there was nothing wrong with the sponge of a brain that resides in his head? Will it be a sponge forever? Will the Tax Collector learn Wang Fung Ho Hiya! and kick the crap out of all these stupid property owners that can't pay their taxes? Or will he finally be fixed and star with Jackie Chan in her next movie "The Billion Dollar Tax Bill"? Hang on to your seats folks - this one is an Oscar contenda!
            Thank you for calling Tax Answer Fone! A taxpayer funded service.
Dominick LoGiudice
Big Indian, NY

Dear Editor,   
            I take with great pleasure this opportunity to address the upcoming election for Ulster County Surrogate. I've been a practicing attorney for almost 30 years and have practiced in Ulster County since 1978. Almost 18 of those years have been with the District Attorney's office. My recent resignation with that office now allows me to put my full faith and support behind Judge Paul Gruner for Surrogate Court Judge. Judge Gruner's position as Public Defender coincided basically with my position as Senior Assistant D.A. As adversaries over the years I have interacted with Judge Gruner on thousands of criminal cases that included dozens of trials and hearings. His respect for the Court, the attorneys, the parties and the juries is beyond reproach. His demeanor in court is incomparable. His devotion to the law is more than admirable.
            As most voters realize, the person elected to the Surrogate Court position will be required not only to sit as Surrogate, but will have enormous responsibilities in Ulster County Court where the vast majority of criminal cases are tried. Criminial trials are probably the most demanding of any work for a trial attorney. It requires an intimate knowledge of the Penal Law, Criminal Procedure, and I believe, most importantly a working knowledge of the Rules of Evidence. Out of all of the judges and attorneys in Kingston over the last two decades that I have worked with, I dare say that there are only four of them who may have spent more time in court with Paul Gruner than I have. Throughout those years I also observed Judge Gruner maintaining a private civil practice. Simply stated, Judge Gruner excels in possessing the necessary requirements that are expected for the next Ulster County Surrogate.
            It is easy to say that a candidate for Judge is fair and compassionate. There are dozens of attorneys, including without hesitation Judge Work, who fit that requirement. It is, however completely different to say that a candidate is not only fair and compassionate, but possesses decades of various legal experience, would have complete command of the law and Rules of Evidence and has had the years of trial experience that is a prerequisite for the position of being a trial judge.
            Judge Gruner, to say the least, is equal to the best jurists that I have encountered in 30 years. Variety of experience is what is required for a judge to stand out above the rest. I urge you to vote for Judge Paul Gruner.
Michael J. Miranda
Mount Pleasant, NY

Dear Editor,   
            We appeal to all the citizens of Ulster County, including Democrats like ourselves, to vote for Republican Paul Gruner on November 2 for the position of Surrogate Judge.
            Voting for judges should have nothing to do with political party affiliation. Mary Work, Judge Gruner's Democratic challenger, has been ensconced in the family court for the past 15 years and has faced no opposition or scrutinization on the basis of merit over the past two decades. Her tenure has been solely the result of partisan politics, as have many family court judges.
            Family court is the only court in the country that ignores the laws of the land and relies upon the discretion of one fallible person, a judge, rather than the rule of law. This is the case with Mary Work and other family court judges who have become all too powerful and self-serving, backed by nothing more than an entrenched political party machinery that keeps them in office and helps them avoid the scrutiny of their constituents.
            In 1995, Judge Mary Work, based upon false accusations, authorized two child abuse investigators to go to the Woodstock Elementary School to interrogate my son in the presence of the school principal, in an effort to determine if I was guilty of child abuse. As a prominent member of the Woodstock community at the time, I was appalled that this investigation took place, let alone the fact that it was done AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. My eleven-year-old son vehemently denied the charges, and they were immediately dropped. If he hadn't spoken up - for any reason - my name would have been held in a computer bank of suspected child abusers until he turned 21 years of age. Over these past five years, I have interviewed and met many men and women whose children were too young to testify to their innocence, as well as those whose children were too intimidated to say anything at all in their parent's defense. This is just one outrageous example of the injustice and absurd proceedings that are often daily routine occurrences in our county's family court at 16 Lucas Avenue in Kingston.
            In the course of the past five years, I have hosted and produced a cable TV show for the sole purpose of bringing attention to the extraordinary abuse in the family courts of the Hudson Valley and Catskills. My friend, John Heard, joins me in these efforts and in support of Paul Gruner. We both welcome any change to the long-standing status quo of horrific mistreatment in these kangaroo courts. (Hearing Examiner John Beisel, a Republican, is a relatively recent addition to this court; he has been consistently fair and diligent and we can only hope that he will continue to work in this venue.)
            Both John and I feel compelled to speak out at this critical time to alert our fellow citizens: this is not a time to vote partisan politics. Voting for judges should have nothing to do with party affiliation, but rather should be determined by competence and judgment. Mr. Gruner is an excellent, well respected Ulster County attorney. He currently sits on the Surrogate Court, having been appointed by Governor Pataki, and I urge all of you to support him by voting Republican on November 2, regardless of your party affiliation.
            The tyranny of family court is finally coming to light through my efforts, John Heard's participation in this cause, and the voices of many others who have risked losing their children by speaking out. In this spirit, we both hope that Judge Paul Gruner will usher in an era of change in the Surrogate Court. Family Court Judge Mary Work is part of a tapestry of entrenched judges from Albany to New York City. We all have seen what happens when someone is in power for too long. Join John and I in making this necessary change by electing someone of high standards to the Surrogate Court bench. Every citizen should spend a morning or afternoon observing the injustice in the Ulster County Family Court and learn firsthand about what we have stated here.
Joanne Michaels
West Hurley, NY
John Heard
Kingston, NY

Dear Editor,
            We need a change in this country. George W. Bush has given this country four years of unsuccessful policies. His policies have lost millions of jobs, caused many people to loose their health insurance and most of those that do have health insurance have seen their cost continue to escalate. He has socked seniors with the largest increase ever in their Medicare monthly payments and even worse he started a war with no end in site. Who knows what else he‚ll do in the next four years if he's elected. 
            Bush started the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to save this country and the world from terrorist‚s attacks. You have to ask yourself why is this country footing most of the bill. Why are so many America troops dieing in Iraq to save the world from terrorists and so few from other countries? Why don‚t other countries like France and Germany have more soldiers on the ground to help us? Why, because George W Bush decided to go it alone. Now there‚s some talk about starting the draft again because some say we need more troops in Iraq. Who knows what Mr. Bush will do next if he gets re-elected?     
            I don‚t think Bush has done anything to make things better for me and this country and that‚s why I‚m voting for change by voting for John Kerry and John Edwards. 
William Warnecke
Glenford, NY

Dear Editor,
            The following was sent to the town board recently...
            Please accept my resignation as Town Historian of Shandaken, effective immediately. Appointed under Supervisor Neal Grant, I have enjoyed the privilege of fostering and preserving a part of the history created by generations of my ancestors and their fellow Shandakenites.
            The recent Shandaken Bicentennial Celebration, 1804-2004 was the result of hard teamwork. My assistant Town Historians June LaMarca and Maureen Nagy deserve SPECIAL accolades for their dedication throughout the two-plus years of planning and implementation.
            Although my historical interests are now directed toward the Capital District area of New York State I will continue to follow the course for Shandaken‚s historical efforts: securing, preserving and disseminating its richest asset, the Town‚s history.
            To this end I recommend Maureen Nagy as Shandaken Town Historian following my tenure. Maureen had proven to be a dedicated, resourceful and thorough assistant historian, qualities absolutely necessary for the position of Town Historian. It is my sincere hope that politics will not play any part in this appointment, but that qualification will be the deciding factor.
            Best wishes to the Town of Shandaken and all its peoples.
            Historically and very truly yours,
Charles J. Zimmerman
Albany, NY