Marco allegations an attempt to defame
Diane Marco is a trustworthy, professional public servant.
The allegations from unnamed employees are an attempt to discredit the commitment and dedication that Diane has given to the town of Rotterdam.
What a fragile constitution one unnamed employee must have to need to take sick leave after being told her involvement with a resident was not necessary, since Diane and another town employee were already taking care of the transaction.
As head of the Town Clerk Office, Diane needs to sign off on all time sheets and should accurately report hours worked.
When my husband died several years ago, I wish someone had laminated the obituary and provided a sympathy card to my family from the town. This is an act of good will at no expense to the town.
The consulting agency could not conclude that Diane did not have proof of disability when she issued parking permits.
Another “unnamed person” accused her of physical contact when Diane’s hands were full with documents for the Senior Citizen meeting. How convenient that someone also had a photo of Diane lowering her face mask while reading a prayer at the meeting. Diane was socially distant and was not a threat.
Is there proof of other employees in the town hall building removing or lowering their mask? Of course not.
Diane Marco was honored as a state Assembly 2021 Woman of Distinction. She should be honored by the town of Rotterdam for her achievements and dedication to her job.
Be smart to keep coronavirus at bay
As the COVID-19 vaccine rollout continues, there is reason for optimism about a “new normal.”
However, as yet there is no conclusive evidence that a vaccinated person cannot transmit the virus.
Moreover, there are many locations where new surges are occurring and variants of COVID-19 are spreading in many nations, including ours.
How should we respond to these concerns? We should respond by following the science.
Science has shown us that the protocols for halting the spread of COVID-19 are very effective.
So masking, social distancing and common sense have provided us with tools for dealing with the virus.
These same protocols will prove effective in dealing with new surges and with COVID-19 variants.
Therefore, for the next year or so, it would be wise to continue wearing a mask in crowded indoor venues and in an airplane, and to practice social distancing in the presence of people you do not know.
Science also informs us that widespread inoculation is essential for “herd immunity” and therefore for social and economic recovery.
In this regard, we may need to be vaccinated yearly against COVID-19 and its variants, much as we need to be vaccinated against the yearly flu. Thus, the new normal could involve a yearly COVID-19 vaccination.
By making intelligent choices, we will be able to enjoy a much less restrictive lifestyle as the rate of vaccination continues to rise, even in the face of some uncertainties.
Supreme Court can’t avoid politics
In her April 16 letter to The Gazette (“Court packing is unconstitutional”), Christine DeMaria wrote that increasing the number of Supreme Court justices “may be unconstitutional” and that “A particular party controlling the Senate or House of Representatives is a result of a valid election. The Supreme Court is above political partisanship.”
She concludes by asking, “So, what am I missing here?”
Clearly, she does not want Congress to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
She apparently does not know that the number of justices, according to the United States Constitution, is a decision left to Congress.
The first Supreme Court had six members.
Secondly, is she aware that Mitch McConnell would not even allow hearings on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, after the death of Justice Scalia, because the next election was only one year away, and voters had the right to decide which president would select Scalia’s replacement?
Apparently that reasoning did not apply when Ruth Ginsburg died and Republicans rushed through Trump’s nominee, conservative Amy Coney Barrett, though the next election was weeks away.
Finally, the selection of Supreme Court justices is political, since they are nominated by a president and confirmed by a Senate elected by American voters.
It is their decisions that should be above politics and based on the constitutionality of the law in the case being decided.
But again, their interpretations of the Constitution are colored by their judicial philosophies and hence, political.
Anthony J. Santo
Let’s do something about what’s wrong
Where is the public outcry about what is happening in our country?
Maybe it is about time to call our congressmen and congresswomen all over the country and let them know how we feel about efforts to take our freedoms, etc.
This movement, woke-ism cancel culture, should be denounced by Congress. Why are they not doing it? Everyone should rail against this movement. Look it up on your phones.
And I am insulted by people calling our country systematically racist.
And I am outraged by those teachers who would not go back to teach American children and now are willing to “risk” teaching undocumented immigrants.
Did money have anything to inspire them? These so-called teachers should be fired. And I hope I did not read that these teachers are still being paid to teach our children when they are not teaching them.
I happen to see the term “presidential timber” meaning one with the abilities and appeal to become president.
And to all you people who voted for him, I am sure you thought he had it, but he does not have it now. And God help us.
And to Congress, get the fence up to stop this invasion. We the taxpayers paid for that fence so we must own it. Or else get the National Guard at all the open borders.
Shirley H. Guidarelli
Commenters to online letters who fail to follow rules against name-calling, profanity, threats, libel or other inappropriate language will have their comments removed and their commenting privileges withdrawn.
To report inappropriate online comments, email Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney at [email protected]