Board should think twice about cuts
It has come to the attention of many of us that the Otsego County Administration Committee under Mr. Jim Johnson, and with the approval of Mr. James Powers, chairman of the county board, voted to eliminate the sheriff's boat patrol for Otsego County, even though the Otsego County Board of Representatives voted to keep the boat patrol in the budget.
Not only did they do this without any input from the full county board, but they did it, apparently, in violation of the NYS Public Officers Law, article 7, section 106. They held a "public" meeting and kept no minutes of this meeting, and, we understand, of other similar meetings. These were not "ad hoc" meetings as suggested.
Notwithstanding their potentially illegal actions, this is not an area to cut from the budget. The sheriff's boat patrol does far more than issue citations; it protects and educates Otsego County residents and those tourists we rely on for much-needed income in these troubled times.
For the Administration Committee to place all of us at risk of our personal safety, and to potentially place the county in a dangerous liability situation, is irresponsible. And to do this when the base cost to the county is only $3,125 borders on the ludicrous.
To also think of cutting the budget from the Soil & Water District is short-sighted as well. That group is one of the few with the knowledge and resources to inform us about the implications of gas well drilling in our area.
The actions of the administration committee need to be scrutinized closely and soon.
Vince Stayter
Maryland
Two sides to story in police matter
Congratulations to Fourth Ward Alderman Mike Lynch. He has proven that there is at least one fair-minded person within our city government.
The actions on the part of the mayor's office, the Oneonta Police Department and The Daily Star have been questionable regarding charges against three city police officers. The officer that is refusing to resign is to be commended. It is unfortunate that the two that resigned early did not stand their ground and do the same.
The Oct. 16 front page of The Star shows a quote from the mayor's office: "Due to the protection provided to police officers under the Civil Rights Law section 50-a, no information shall be released at this time regarding the officer's identity or the disciplinary charges." Is the mayor and/or police upper echelon exempt from adhering to this law?
If these three men did indeed act in a way "unbecoming an officer," why was this not taken care of internally by OPD?
The Star on Oct. 21 mentions further details that might raise another question here. Why have the identities of the women connected to these so-called incidents not been exposed? They, in no way, should be viewed as victims and/or innocent bystanders.
Mr. Lynch's comment: "I am concerned with the manner in which these events were/are being handled has the potential to lead to a crisis of confidence within our community." Yes, indeed, some people within the public sector will question the alleged actions, but I hope that they can bear in mind that there are always two sides to every story, and we have been exposed to only one.
B. Thomson
Mount Vision
