ARCHIVES
2007 | 2006 | 2005

Your opinion counts...

Click here to share your views on issues concerning the Town of Rochester. While all correspondence is welcomed, the Rochester Republican Club reserves the right to post only letters or excerpts which embrace the Republican values. Moreover, the opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Rochester Republican Club.

Click here to send letters to local newspapers.

A patriot...

...is someone who supports the troops by praying for their safety and success. Armchair generals spin history that conveniently overlooks the havoc that invaded our shores. Core values come via instinct and serve as fertilizer for reasoning. Many youths think they join the Armed Forces for educational or financial benefits, but those are superficial needs compared to the real instinct of survival expressed. Duty is intuitive and honor flows from a country’s need. "We will attack terrorism and go after any country that sponsors terrorism," was not an idle threat.

Enlisting is an embryo-cord cutting decision as new frontline recruits discover cadavers are without spirit, therefore spirit needs not the flesh.

War rages between Old Testament and new. Americans can add addendums to the Constitution, but a Muslim cannot add a word to the Koran. Forbidden to interpretation or metaphors, if not written, it cannot be spoken. To his credit, Mohammad stopped the ritualistic killing of the first-born female. Maybe the Muslim resurgence is karma to America's aborted millions. The Koran clearly states compassion is a weakness, and it encourages its faithful to fling their blood on others.

Like parking tickets that won't go away,
one can run to fight another day,
or stand and hold their ground.
Whatever the way, the piper will play,
courage is all that is needed.

Bill Dukas
Accord

Beating a dead horse...

Dear Editor,

After Terpening’s second letter (BSP, April 18, 2008), I received an email from your managing editor indicating that the paper is tiring of the back and forth between Terpening & me on the Mihailescu issue. It was indicated in that email that a one-time response to a story or letter would be acceptable and went on to say “fair is fair, he wrote twice, you wrote twice. But it must end somewhere”. “As this progresses somebody is going to write something incendiary or, worse, libelous or slanderous. THEN it would become my problem and turn from a little war of words into something more serious.”

After reading the interview with Pam Duke on your front page of the BSP May 2 issue I understood your reluctance to print my complete letter. Duke didn't say a word about "Manuelagate" (as you described this election issue in Nov. 2007) and doesn't admit any wrong-doing. You printed my second response after deleting a few key paragraphs, but yet you continue to print Terpening's “scandal mongering.” I am beginning to think the Blue Stone has a political side.

I agree it has gone on long enough. As the old saying goes, “this is like beating a dead horse”. I have decided that no matter what I or Terpening write, people will believe what they want to believe regarding this case. I choose to believe Manuela Mihailescu had the right to feel the way she did during that interview (knowing that emotions are based on previous life experiences) and had the right to take the legal steps that she did. Would anyone else feel or react the same way in the same situation? I can’t say. But that does not mean that Manuela didn’t have the right to feel the way she did.

So, I will leave you with this:

1. Mihailescu won her case (against the Duke Town Board) in the Hurley Small Claims Court; Judge Parker concluded in his "Case Summary: "This court's position is that the town board attacked Ms. Mihailescu with the porn pictures. They should have realized that they caused her to be in shock by the end of the meeting. They should have suggested that she not drive home in that state of mind. They did nothing." Please note the words "town board attacked Ms. Mihailescu" and "they did nothing", plural including all town board members and former town attorney, not only Ron Santosky.

2. Mihailescu won election as Town of Rochester Councilwoman (with 1595 votes, 580 more than her main attacker, former Councilman Francis Gray)

3. Mihailescu then won in Ulster County Court, the appeal filed by the Duke administration.

With no legal training or education, Mihailescu ALWAYS represented herself in court.

Terpening, (BSP May 16) says "So much for the credibility of Mihailescu's claims." Two different judges in two different courts and 1595 Rochester voters did find her credible... And so do I. (The transcript is available for anyone that cares to read all 94 pages, in the order the testimony was given.)

Oh yeah…about the Republican watchdog, Terpening forgot to mention that Santosky had recused himself from the interview. He had no power, real or perceived to stop what was happening, nor did he have participation or input. He was the proverbial “fly on the wall”. Santosky maintained executive session confidentiality until he was subpoenaed to court to testify.

Kandy Santosky
Accord

Terpening, again!

Dear Editor,

In his letters "Mihailescu incident won't die" (BSP, March 7, 2008) and again in “Responds to Santosky” (BSP, April 18, 2008) Mr. Terpening continues to have questions regarding the court case of Mihailescu vs Town of Rochester.

So, here I am again to clarify for Mr. Terpening and any readers he may have confused. I have first-hand knowledge of this case, as I was present for the entire court testimony in June 2007.

In essence, Terpening’s letters accuse Manuela Mihailescu of asking to see the pornographic photographs and then blaming the Town Board for forcing them on her.

Clarification #1 Councilman Santosky's testimony did NOT contradict what Mihailescu said as indicated by Terpening, but actually confirmed it. Santosky said, “What you were being asked had nothing to do with being on the Historic Committee. You were asked about a porn website... it was an attack on you by our Town Board and I was there and watched it.”

The defense kept insisting that “she asked” and that the pictures were shown to her at her request. This must be as far as Terpening got in reading the testimony because apparently the only thing he got out of those 94 pages of testimony was “she asked.”

If he had read further he would have noticed that even the Judge had commented and said "Well if I was accused of this I would demand to see it also." “Somebody accuses you of something I wanna know what it is you are accusing me of.” And “She was not responsible for it”

Clarification #2 What Mihailescu said was “I did not demand the photos. I demanded to see proof of what I was accused of again. Did you see a website? She continued to ask the (then) Town Attorney about an URL: “Did you ever receive one related to my name”? The defense responded, “I did not”. Did anybody provide me any address for a website?” The defense responded, “No”.

The Duke administration decided Mihailescu was guilty and they wanted her to prove her innocence. Prove that she did not have an adult web site. Maybe you can tell me how you prove something to be false if it never existed in the first place. Let me be very clear here. Mihailescu asked for PROOF, not pictures. As the court documents prove, there was absolutely no proof of a web site. This should also be a reminder that we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

Terpening says “No determination of any criminal wrongdoing resulted from Mihailescu’s police complaint.”

Clarification #3 Conspiring and bringing obscene material on town property, to Town hall, was in itself a criminal act. No determination was made because the criminal investigation didn't exist. It was not even started. It was not pursued because the officials are NO longer elected officials.

After using words and phrases such as “disturbing questions” “undermine,” “exaggeration, to get back at, undermine and overthrow,” “unscrupulous tactics” and “scandal mongering” Terpening then claims “I guess gratuitous accusations are a recurring theme of the Republican machine in Rochester.” Wow, talk about a bizarre statement! I think he must have meant Democratic machine in Marbletown.

Terpening can’t accept that the Duke Administration was dumb enough to “openly commit wrongdoing and criminal acts” because in his mind “such blatant, unreasoning, suicidal action begs credibility”. Well, dumb or not it happened. Get over it. (Dumber things have happened, especially in politics, Democrat & Republican alike).

To summarize and in chronological order, Mihailescu won in the Hurley Small Claims Court, then won election as Town of Rochester Councilwoman, ousting her main accuser and then won in Ulster County Court, the appeal filed by the Duke administration. (News which was "notably unannounced" by the press). She always represented herself in court.

So, public office was NOT "obtained through use of deception" but by the truth being told and prevailing.

Kandy Santosky
Accord

Letter published in Blue Stone Press — April 4, 2008

Terpening is wrong

To the Editor:

In his letter "Mihailescu incident won't die" (Blue Stone Press, March 7, 2008) Mr. Terpening feels that "Disturbing questions persist concerning last year's campaign in Rochester to undermine and unseat Democrats on the Town Board."

Mr. Terpening goes on to give his version of what he thinks happened regarding the January 24th 2007 interview of Manuela Mihailescu and the election that followed in November. He ends his letter by asking if Mihailescu and Supervisor Chipman's accusations are truth or an exaggeration, to get back at, undermine and overthrow the Democrats and get the Republicans elected.

It's obvious that Mr. Terpening either agrees with the actions and behavior of the Duke administration or he never attended a Town of Rochester Town Board meeting conducted under the leadership of Pam Duke, so I will clarify a few things. The Duke administration was seen by many town residents (Democrats and Republicans alike) as self-serving, arrogant, condescending and demeaning to the people they were elected to serve.

Terpening's view of executive sessions and confidentiality shows either he doesn't know or has refused to acknowledge or accept State Law, as did the Duke administration. Executive Sessions are not for people to hide behind so they can intimidate and humiliate people and then emerge as if nothing has happened. He asks, would the Board's Democrats behave in such a manner with Santosky as a witness throughout the interview and the Town Attorney present? Absolutely! The Duke administration was like Elliot Spitzer, they thought they were above reproach. Throughout the Duke administration Rod Futterfas gave the appearance of working for Pam Duke, not the Town. If she said jump, he said how high?

So, no I do not believe there was any exaggeration in Mihailescu's statement or that of now Supervisor Chipman. I believe they tried to explain it in terms that everyone could understand and relate to, so you could put yourself in her shoes.

The Mihailescu interview was not the one and only incident that occurred during the Duke administration. There was the hidden money for a comprehensive plan, there was the firing of MaryLou Christiana, the firing of Doug Dymond, the moratorium against the wishes of the community, the overly restrictive zoning laws, the filling of vacancies with people from Rosendale rather than residents of Rochester and the refusal to reappoint Sharon Hornbeck as Assessor because she might not stay 6 years. Ironically, the person that Duke appointed only stayed about 3 months!

Try as he might to cast suspicion or create his own scandal mongering, Terpening doesn't know Ronald Santosky. Ron, (my husband) is a businessman in the community and is known specifically for his reputation of being fair and honest. So to infer that he might have exaggerated or lied to help Mihailescu is laughable.

It appears that Terpening also refuses to accept and acknowledge that the town residents did not share the same opinions, views or desires of the Duke administration and therefore voted them out of office. It was the will of the people that removed them from office, not any one incident or political group.

Mr. Terpening should stop using his own unscrupulous tactic such as letters that contain innuendos, inaccuracies and incomplete information in an attempt to mislead the voters. (The Town of Rochester will have another election this year for one Council Seat.)

Kandy Santosky
Accord

Letter published in Blue Stone Press — April 4, 2008

Shouldn't life be fun?

To the Editor:

I go to the post office & I hear "Hello, Alysse, how are you?" I go to the food store & I hear "Hello, Alysse, how are you?" I pump a little gas into my car, go inside to pay & I hear "Hello, Alysse, how are you?"

I had a car accident last winter & I can't tell you how many people stopped to see if I was OK, if I called the police, if I needed any help. There were those I knew, & those I didn't. It was heartwarming.

All this reinforces why I choose to live here. (Yes, it is a choice.) People are nice, people are friendly, people care.

Of course, there are those who are grouchy. There are those who are plagued with the big town mentality. And there are those who only see what's wrong, but to my eye, the good outweighs the bad.

To me, I live amongst a big family. Certainly, families don't always agree. But when push comes to shove, they stick together for the greater good.

And the greater good here is to keep these towns, these villages, this valley, friendly, caring & nice.

Because when you come right down to it, being nice is being the best we can be. It's free. It's easy. It's fun. And shouldn't life be fun?

Alysse Ricks
Accord

Blue Stone Press, December 21, 2007

Letter writers off base

To The Editor:

In the December 7, 2007 issue of Blue Stone Press, the letter-writers Don Dunn and Bill Terpening complained in lockstep about this verse from a poem featured in a United Rochester advertisement: "good won over evil and right won over wrong." If their writing is an indication, they would have loved it the other way around.

By invoking Jerry Fallwel, Karl Rowe, George Bush — as well as "slave owners," "white men" and Iraq — to describe the Town of Rochester political climate, they only affirm the root cause of their side's devastating defeat in the 2007 elections: rambling ideology disconnected from life support.

Both writers use the same shovel to pile up explanations for their party's embarrassing loss at the polls. According to them, 62% of Rochester's voters are dummies taken in by "a campaign of fear and intimidation."

It's entertaining to see that Mr. Dunn — "a journalist with more than 25 years experience" — has no use for facts. He insinuates that the new administration — elected by 62% of the votes — condones "defamation and slurs." He doesn't give one example of such, because not even "Don the Magician" — as he introduced himself at a Town Board meeting — could produce one. He conveniently forgets that Manuela Michailescu won a seat on the Town Board by running a campaign against "defamation and slurs," and that he was one of the Duke administration's lapdogs who wrote letters against Manuela's fight for truth.

Mr. Terpening is clearly confused in his belief that everyone who doesn't share his views must be a Republican. He calls United Rochester a "Republican brigade," indifferent to the fact that United Rochester includes Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, and was present on the ballot on the Conservative Party line. He calls the new administration "the Republican gang of 5" just to insult them for winning the election.

After all, "good won over evil and right won over wrong."

Jon Dogar-Marinesco
Kerhonkson

Blue Stone Press, December 21, 2007

Dunn spins in his letter

To The Editor:

In his letter "Analysis was right on" (Blue Stone Press, December 7, 2007) Mr. Dunn writes that — in his view — there was nothing "evil or wrong" in the successful efforts of the Duke administration. To support his statement, he provides a list of her "accomplishments."

"Paying down debt, run up by prior Republican administration."

Doesn't Mr. Dunn realize that the Town makes more money by borrowing at close to nothing while placing funds in a Certificate of Deposit at a much higher rate, therefore making money. To miraculously pay down the debt, Duke had to dip in the Contingency Fund in order to claim a reduction in taxes. Her success in paying off debt was nothing more than spending monies from savings.

"Obtain reliable Internet and cellphone service."

If only Homeland Towers had a record of successful tower completions! Homeland asking the Town to waive most of the Town Law requirements (which the Town did), the fact that a majority of the discussions were held in executive session, and that the adjoining landowner's concerns were ignored, all suggest an inexperienced and poorly funded organization. Other companies with proven track records came forward and a presentation was made. But, like so many other things during the Duke administration, this was ignored. Reliable service? Remains to be seen.

"Providing residents with three free summertime evenings of music in the town park."

Supervisor Duke spent $2,000 of taxpayer's money for concerts where an average of 35 people — mostly out-of-towners — attended. If you attended, you were asked for donations to help cover the cost of the event. Mr. Dunn thought he was enjoying free concerts in the park when in fact he paid for them with his tax dollars as did everyone else in town whether they attended or not, whether they liked jazz — and calls for the President's impeachment — or not.

"Getting the ball rolling on a Veterans Memorial Park." After 4 years of hard work, nobody knows how much it will cost, or how it's going to be funded. In the beginning it was stated that it was all-free. Everything was being donated. Then some money was budgeted for it. Now they have asked Republican Senator Bonacic for a grant. The ball is rolling indeed, uphill.

A self-described experienced and principled journalist, Mr. Dunn should stop being the mouthpiece of the Duke administration. Unless, of course, as a member of the Rochester Democratic Committee, he is required to keep spinning.

Kandy Santosky
Accord