The River Reporter Online - Letters to the Editor

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing on behalf of a group.

Letters are printed as they are received, or at the discretion of the editor, and without correction to grammar or spelling. It is requested they be limited to 500 words; correspondents may be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.

The allegations that a troubled student at the Narrowsburg campus of the Sullivan West Central School District threatened to shoot people at a district-sponsored pep rally highlights some ongoing problems in the district. We don’t want a repetition of the Columbine massacre here.

Many people feel that the Johndrow administration has been less than candid about the incident and is generally avoiding unpleasant disciplinary issues rather than dealing with them in a decisive and open manner.

For example, since the merger many teachers have been talking off the record about a general decline in discipline and decorum in the Jeffersonville building. At the January 5 school board meeting, a faculty member publicly complained about sexual harassment among students at the Jeffersonville campus and received no satisfactory response concerning the problem.

On The River Reporter’s community Internet site, there have been heated discussions about violent kids, Delaware Valley gangs and the inept handling of these matters in the Sullivan West district.

One of the most troubling comments on the Internet site alleges, “in one of the schools in the SW district, the teachers and administration knew of some girls who were being sexually abused by their brothers and they did nothing to help these girls. All they could say was ‘it is different here in the country.’”

It is time for the Johndrow administration to get its head out of the sand and start dealing with these problems.

A publicity release issued by Michael Johndrow, superintendent of the Sullivan West Central School, begins, “in an on-going effort to keep our taxpayers informed of the details of Sullivan West Central School’s building and renovation project...” Mr. Johndrow then proceeds to provide inaccurate and incomplete information to the public, which needs to be corrected and clarified.

Mr. Johndrow writes that the district now has formal ownership of the 48 acres in Lake Huntington “donated” by William Boucher. Mr. Boucher did not donate property to the school district. Under the guise of a donation, and with the help of Mr. Johndrow, Mr. Boucher and his partners cut themselves a very sweet deal with the school district.

A deed recorded November 1, 2000 identifies “considerations” for the transfer of approximately 48 acres of land from Boucher Investments, L.P. to Sullivan West Central School District. These considerations include: 1) an easement in and over the school’s future entrance road for ingress and egress for the remaining lands of Boucher Investments, L.P. (These remaining lands are for a sub-division which Mr. Boucher demanded approval of as a condition for his transfer of property to the school.) 2) The grant of authority to Boucher Investments, L.P. to “improve, offer and deed” this road to the Town of Cochecton in the future. We build it and own it but he can use it and give it away. 3) The obligation of the school district to “install a sanitary sewer line sufficient in capacity to service the requirements of Sullivan West Central School District and the development of up to 60 single family dwellings on the remaining lands of” Boucher Investments, L.P.. We are going to build a sewer line for his development.

Mr. Boucher is obviously an astute businessman who has managed to exchange 48 acres of vacant and virtually inaccessible land for what could arguably be millions of dollars in improvements that will turn his remaining property into a valuable piece of real estate—all at local taxpayer expense. It is dishonest and unfair of Mr. Johndrow to oblige these same taxpayers to pay homage to Mr. Boucher as a generous benefactor and philanthropist. Perhaps this constant and wholly inaccurate reference to the 48 acres as having been “donated” is meant to dissuade the well-mannered residents of the community from looking a gift horse in the mouth. Mr. Johndrow’s unwillingness to be forthright to the very people who are going to pay for these expensive “considerations” raises suspicions about who Mr. Boucher’s partners are, and who else may be capitalizing and benefiting from an increase in real estate values. It sure hasn’t been the students.

Mr. Johndrow goes on to say, “we are pleased with how things have progressed, and are looking forward to breaking ground, pending timely approvals from SED, this spring.” If Mr. Johndrow were truly interested in informing taxpayers of project updates, he would be telling them the unfortunate fact that at this very moment the school board and administration have absolutely no knowledge of how much, if any, of this project is going to be funded by the state. That is because on January 3rd Governor Pataki announced his new “fundamental reform of building aid proposal” in the state’s 2001-02 Executive Budget, which may completely change the rules on how the state will fund our school projects. Even the State Education Department is advising “all school districts that the amount of state building aid that will be available for new construction projects will not be finalized until enactment of the State’s 2001-02 budget. School districts should take this into consideration as they proceed with financing and construction of school facility projects approved by SED after January 15, 2001.”

The school superintendent and the board of education should be telling us what truly forthright officials in other districts are telling their constituents—that everything we were told about the local share of the cost of our building project during the selling of the referendum may be null and void. This of course raises some serious questions. Would this board actually move forward with this project without knowing what the local cost will be? Isn’t the board interested in the public’s opinion about such an issue? Is it wise to continue to dismantle and disrupt the educational development of our students in anticipation of projects that may have to be put on hold or may never happen?

Mr. Johndrow would better serve the interests of the public, including Boucher Investments, L.P., if he would provide more accurate and comprehensive information in his public relations firm’s next press release.

In response to Joseph de Pane’s remarks on the presidential inauguration in The River Reporter February 1-7, 2001 issue, I’d like to point out a few facts. While it may be “obvious” to him that “the majority of voters do not support the Republican Party platform,” the facts are that A1 Gore got over fifty million votes, and so did George W. Bush. In fact, less than one half of one percent nationwide separates them. It was a statistical dead heat, and that total is over five million more votes than Bill Clinton got in 1992. Seven million more than he got in 1996. It is true that the media has been hammering us over the head with the idea that Mr. Bush does not have “a mandate.” The media, it seems, is very selective about what it makes “obvious” to its audience. In 1992, 56 percent voted against the Democratic Party platform. (Remember H. Ross Perot?) That year, only 43 percent voted for it, a negative “mandate” of over 13 percent or 13 million votes. I don’t recall the “mandate” question being quite so obvious back then.

The election was a virtual tie. There were plenty of good arguments on both sides that the result could have been different if… (fill in the blank)… had happened or not happened. George W. Bush is the president now; let’s see how his first term stacks up against Mr. Clinton’s. One good outcome of this election is increased public awareness of (and hopefully a crackdown on) voter fraud, election irregularities, unreliable voting machines and media monkey business.

People who feel that our country would benefit by a stronger third party, be it Independent, Green, or some other, should consider how other countries fare with that kind of fractured political climate. Our two-party system works well with the system of checks and balances provided by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government as set up by the founding fathers. The rise of a third (fourth, fifth or more) party would ensure that in future elections, most people would be voting for someone other than the winner. If legislative “gridlock” is a problem now, think what it would be with a government made up of multiple warring factions. If a group has ideas that it feels have merit, let them compete for a mandate for those ideas in the arena of public opinion, and for recognition within one or both of the existing parties.

As far as comparisons [made by Mr. De Pane] between the tens of thousand of peaceful students and families in the permitted areas vs. the bleachers full of Republicans with mink coats and glittering jewels, with cops in full riot gear to boot, come on Joe, give us a break, I bet Robin Hood was in there somewhere too. I’ll skip the stereotypical remarks about the protesters, but I’d like to suggest that there might be a similar display of wealth when the Hollywood crowd (and fugitive billionaires) gathered along with Chinese agents toting bags stuffed full of cash in support of the Clinton/Gore team.

A recent headline, “Concord lobbies state, county for millions” might more accurately have read “ for well over a hundred million.”

The developer, Louis Cappelli, (noted for his generosity to politicians), it was noted, plans to put up only 20 percent of all costs. The rest would be put up by us—taxpayers. Assemblyman Gunther noted that he might “advocate for the project,” describing it as “definitely a live wire.”

He got that right! A source of energy perhaps, but a clear and present hazard (as in Danger Live Wire!)

I know little of business, but is there a businessman out there who would not gamble on even a half‑baked plan if he knew that he would derive all the profits while risking only 20 percent of the cost?