Subscriber login

Letters to the Editor
What you need to know for 01/23/2018

Something doesn’t add up in Glenville supervisor’s office

Something doesn’t add up in Glenville supervisor’s office

*Something doesn’t add up in Glenville supervisor’s office *SAFE Act was misdirected political resp

Something doesn’t add up in Glenville supervisor’s office

Just checking to make sure I have the timeline right:

1) Chris Koetzle chose to run for the part-time position of Glenville supervisor in 2009.

2) Upon being elected, he discovered he was required to do more work in that position than he expected. This work was alleviated by having help in the form of Jamie McFarland, director of operations.

3) For most of his term, Mr. Koetzle said he felt the position should be full-time.

4) In early November 2013, Mr. Koetzle ran for reelection as part-time supervisor, and won.

5) Days later Jamie McFarland, wanting to spend more time with his family, decided to retire. Mr. McFarland’s previous duties were spread to various departments.

6) In mid-November, the all-Republican Town Board decided to create the position of full-time supervisor with no public comment. Due to the attention this brought, a public meeting was held.

7) After public comment, on Dec. 18, the Town Board decided to make the supervisor position full-time, with a substantial increase in salary.

8) In early January, the now full-time supervisor Koetzle decided he needed additional help and asked the Town Board to rehire the retired McFarland as deputy supervisor, salary to be determined.

9) On Jan. 8, the deputy supervisor position and duties were to be voted on.

It appears that in two short months, Glenville has gone from having a part-time supervisor to having a full-time supervisor and a deputy supervisor in addition.

Elaine J. Neumann


SAFE Act was misdirected political response by state

Re Charles Rielly’s Jan. 3 letter, which supports the “SAFE Act” and takes to task both the NRA [National Rifle Association] and Gazette outdoor columnist Ed Noonan as being narrow of vision for opposing it:

I would submit it is Mr. Rielly’s vision that fails to see the “SAFE Act” is not about safety, but a longstanding political agenda that seeks to control guns. Had the SAFE Act been a law in Newtown, Conn., last year, it would not have prevented the tragic shootings that happened there; nor would it have prevented the shootings in Colorado.

Those were carried out by insane people, bent on killing by whatever means. Therein lies the reason the SAFE Act is but an irresponsible attempt by politically driven lawmakers to simply pass a law, any law, that creates the impression that this problem is now fixed. This law was passed overnight and without the normal safeguards of legislating laws.

Mr. Rielly seems to have no problem giving up some of his rights, freedoms and his ability to easily protect himself and others from violence. It has been one year since he willingly gave up those freedoms. The question that must be asked is: For what?

Did gun-related crime go down? Are we as a society any safer from gun violence? Are there fewer guns on the streets, available to those who would use them in a crime? Most importantly, are there adequate mechanisms now in place due to that law, that will identify/prevent the criminally insane from killing others? Background checks in many cases have failed to do this.

All the answers, sadly, are no. Which renders the “SAFE Act” an ineffective cop-out by those of both parties who voted for this travesty!

John Osterlitz


Don’t trumpet state’s long-delayed storm plan

Re Jan. 8 article: “Biden hails storm plan”: What kind of garbage are you trying to shove down my throat? Your front page has a photo of the vice president [Joe Biden] shaking hands with our governor. Why?

These men are elected leaders, leaders who were briefed years ago of the dangers facing New York. They did nothing. They waited until people died, just like Saratoga did [with the homeless woman who froze to death].

Where is the vision in their leadership?

Mark Jaycox


Letters Policy

The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.

There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.

All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.

Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.

For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.

View Comments
Hide Comments
0 premium 1 premium 2 premium 3 premium 4 premium 5 premium article articles remaining SUBSCRIBE TODAY

You have reached your monthly premium content limit.

Continue to enjoy Daily Gazette premium content by becoming a subscriber.
Already a subscriber? Log In