|
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
|
