Our Readers Respond...


In Opposition to Raises For Election Commissioners




Dear Editor:


By law, Westchester County is required to have two Commissioners of Elections, one representing each of the two major parties. Although there is no reason to believe that the responsibilities of this office are too much for a single individual, they collectively pull down almost a quarter of a million plus per year plus benefits and pension (currently $127,125 a year each, plus longevity pay). Having been recommended by their respective parties, each commissioner is appointed to a two-year term by the County Executive and confirmed by the Board of Legislators. The Republican commissioner, Carolee Sunderland, was vice chair of the county Republican Party and ran its White Plains office for a decade. Her opposite number, Reginald LaFayette, is currently the chairman of the county Democratic Party. Neither appears to have had any obvious qualifications for the office of Commissioner of Elections, other than faithful party service, prior to having been appointed.


Now, “increased responsibilities” stemming from the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) is offered by the County Executive (and of course, the commissioners themselves) as justifi-cation for bringing their salaries “up to par” with other county commissioners, who get $155,245 for 2007. This means each will need $28,000 more per year, raising their collective pay to over $300,000. Among our elected officials none seems to question the need for such an increase. Nor has anyone questioned why two people should be paid a full salary for holding down what is essentially one job. (Of course, one reason might be that they spend half their time maneuvering against each other!)



“Parity,” it seems to me, would mean $77,622.50 apiece plus half the longevity pay, assuming the other commissioners receive this extra perk. I wonder just how far down the Board of Elections organization chart this duplication of office goes. The Board letterhead lists two Deputy Commissioners, each tucked neatly under his or her respective commissioner. As a poll worker I am aware that there must be at
least one representative from each party working in each election district. (I fill this role as a Democrat on election day.) In my experience I have never seen any action taken in regard to someone’s right to vote which in the slightest way reflects party bias. But what about in between these extremes? Doesn’t there come a point at which it is counterproductive to have rival sets of foxes minding the chicken coop?



That way it takes weeks to decide closely contested elections. That way it takes years to select foolproof voting machines. That way the arcane election laws are perennially interpreted so as to keep opposition candidates off the ballot in party primaries and general elections. According to the Journal News (March 18, p. 1A), only George Oros, the Republican Minority Leader in the County Legislature, has expressed concerns about the propriety of a party leader holding a “county policymaking post,” but he apparently takes no issue with the purely political nature of Board of Elections appointments. In my opinion the Board of Elections should be headed by a single non-partisan commissioner who takes advice, but certainly not direction, from a committee comprised of representatives from all the political parties that have received some minimum percentage of the vote in the previous gubernatorial election. This will take a change in the law at the state level but perhaps our elected representatives are not beyond redemption.


Joel Rudikoff
White Plains




Editor’s Note: While We endorse the spirit and the substance of Mr. Rudikoff’s comments, We would ask him, What makes you think that Reggie and Carolee spend any time maneuvering against each other? A closer examination will reveal that, for many years, they have spent all of their time maneuvering in mutual service of political power brokers such as Larry Schwartz, Giulio Cavallo, and all those candidates who
have been under their control.



Agrees We Can’t Ban Words




Dear Editor:


I am inclined to agree with your position regarding banning the word nigger. In a free society it is preposterous to suggest banning words, no matter how offensive they are to that society. I offer the supposition had society banned the word abolition in the early 1800’s the concept of abolitionists may have never took hold and slavery might still exist.


And the use of the word nigger with all of its hated, anger and hostility would still be as acceptable as it was when I was an early teen. And therefore this whole discussion would be rhetorical It is dangerous when governments control what people say and think. That government can then control the ideas and actions of the people thus enabling the government to suppress the people’s desire for human rights. I believe this to be true because I was taught this in school, in an America where freedom rang loudly especially on AUG. 28, 1963.


Martin Luther King, Jr., in one of the great speeches ever given by a human being, in a much more eloquent way than I stated, ” let freedom ring,” “let it ring from every tenement and every hamlet, from every state and every city,” please note he never suggested that George Wallace, Strom Thurmond or the Grand Wizard should not have the right to use the word nigger.


The irony is while the legislature was engaging in this monumentally absurd pretense ” banning the use of the word nigger” it would appear that according to the article submitted by the “White Sergeant.” Anyone in the employ of the county that actually uses the word nigger with all of its hated, anger and hostility is rewarded. Banning words and not actions is the conduct of tyrants and cowards it would not surprise me to find the county legislature is full of both. Even though the excerpts were from MLK’s I Have a Dream speech the legislature should realize “We are not asleep”!


Kevin L. McGrew




Father of Pirro Victim Speaks Out


Dear Editor:




I just read with great interest your edition of March 15, 2007. I have a personal interest in the article because I am Marci Stein’s father. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to discover the evidence of what Pirro and Laura Murphy had done only to find out that there was nothing
that could be done to punish them. They are bigger criminals than most of the people they have prosecuted. I would like to help you in any
way I can to achieve what you are attempting to do. In contacting the state officials I wonder if there could be pardons granted to those individuals that had their lives turned upside down by Pirro and her staff. In reading further in the paper I saw that Judge Kenneth Lange has a column. He was the Judge that Marci’s case was first given to and he was removed and replaced by one of Pirro’s cronies.


We never knew why he was removed. Would it be appropiate to ask him why. We always suspected that Pirro was behind it but couldn’t prove it. I wish to thank you for what you are doing and again I would like to help you in any way.


Joseph Bilello




Editor’s Note: In speaking with Judge Lange, we have discovered that he had initial contact with Marci’s case in the pretrial hearings. It is not unusual for one judge to handle the pretrial hearings while another may actually preside over the trial. Frequently a judge who has handled the pretrial motions is already committed to another case in the same time frame, and must relinquish to an available judge.


It happens the editor attended Marci’s trial back in the summer of 2001, presided over by County Court Judge Barbara Zambelli. It was from that attendance, over several days, that the information that formed the basis of our comments in our March 15th edition were derived.
As regards your “frustration” with the fact that, having once discovered Pirro and Murphy’s malicious prosecutorial misconduct “there was nothing that could be done to punish them,” be assured that issue, as pertains to future prosecutions, is a matter currently under study and for which a legislative remedy may soon be in the offing.