Levy does not want to reward ‘cabal’
An article noted that Newsday was seeking the release of an agreement between the former Suffolk County district attorney and former County Executive Steve Levy ["Levy sues to stop disclosure," News, June 3]. Levy’s initial lack of comment in the article was based on the court order declaring the proceeding was under seal. Given that the district attorney’s office nevertheless confirmed the pending action to the media, Levy now feels compelled to respond.
Levy’s motivation in maintaining the confidentiality of the agreement made with the former district attorney is completely understandable. A Newsday expose referenced a concession from higher-ups in the former district attorney’s office that they were seeking a coup to remove Levy from office because they considered him an "enemy" who was "uncontrollable" in their plot to wrest control of the Suffolk County Police Department.
Who, after being targeted and surveilled for several years in such an insidious manner, would want their privacy exposed publicly? That would wind up rewarding the cabal that put this political vendetta in motion.
Michelle Aulivola, Bay Shore
Editor’s note: The writer is an attorney for the law firm that represents Steve Levy.
What makes Steve Levy special that he can keep a non-prosecution agreement from being disclosed? Politicians have their own set of rules. They label something as "nondisclosure," and we don’t have a right to view it?
A few months ago, the Democrats were hailing transparency and full disclosure when it comes to the police. They passed a law that police records are public. What about politicians? It seems they have a "do what I say, but not as I do" approach when it comes to them — why? They protect one another, and transparency doesn’t apply to them.
If police records are now public, then so should the records of politicians and all civil servants who are public employees, regardless if they are elected or hired in Civil Service.
Larry Lombardo, Lynbrook
Editor’s note: The writer is a retired New York City Transit police sergeant.
One open question was not addressed in Newsday’s article and editorial on opening the sealed non-prosecution agreement of Steve Levy. To whom did the Levy campaign surrender the $4 million? When a political campaign normally dies, excess campaign funds have often been part of questionable activity. This campaign ended under questionable circumstances by the actions of questionable people. Where did the money go, and where did it come from?
Barrett T. Clay, Coram
Golf course purchase a public transaction
With private developers seeking to purchase the Peninsula Golf Course in Massapequa, the Oyster Bay Town board publicly discussed obtaining the property and preserving its status as recreational parkland.
Newsday’s article led readers into believing that a real estate transaction is being completed without informing the public ["Oyster Bay golf pitch," News, May 30].
Nothing is further from the truth.
When purchasing property, neither the public nor the private sector discloses offers until an agreement is reached.
This is important as many in the private sector would seek to outbid the town, driving up the price and costing taxpayers more money. We cannot let that happen.
Once a sale price is reached, it is put in a public notice before purchase and voted upon at a public town meeting.
Frank Scalera, Oyster Bay
Editor’s note: The writer is the Oyster Bay Town attorney.
Get a shot at this state’s vaccine offer
Quite a few readers were incensed and offended by the "carrots" offered to people as an inducement to those who were reluctant to get vaccinated for COVID-19 ["Bad idea to offer ‘carrots’ with shots," Letters, June 3]. They were upset that lottery tickets and scholarships were being offered as incentives.
I wonder if those readers have read about West Virginia’s vaccine offer — shotguns and rifles. That’s something to get incensed about! Is the goal to get more guns on the street or more individuals vaccinated?
Beth Rose Macht, Long Beach
Gun manufacturers bill a slippery slope
What happened to people taking responsibility for their actions?
The State Legislature is considering a bill to hold gun manufacturers responsible if someone uses their products to shoot people ["Some bills under consideration," News, May 30].
This is a slippery slope. I don’t know of many U.S. speed limits over 70 miles per hour, yet car companies make vehicles that can go 150 mph. They also advertise high-speed driving, 360-degree turns into a parking space, etc. Many die in high-speed car crashes, so under this bill, car companies apparently could be sued.
If someone is stabbed with a kitchen knife, can the knife company be sued? This is going to open up a can of worms that we will all regret.
People are responsible for their actions and should be the ones held accountable.
Victor Patalano, Levittown