Letters to the Malverne/West Hempstead Herald July 5, 2012

Draw your own conclusion

To the Editor:

In response to the remarks made about my alleged ethical violation of my obligations as a board member, I have requested the opinion of our school board attorney to be released.

Those of you who were present at the board meeting on June 19 heard that the attorney stated that he had rendered a written opinion to the Board of Education on May 31 regarding the Code of Ethics and Responsibilities for School Board Members.

I asked the board to waive the client-attorney privilege with regard to this matter at the board meeting on June 26. The board voted 5-2 not to release this memo.

If my critics feel that they are right, they should ask the Board of Education why it isn’t releasing the legal opinion of its own attorney?

I will leave it up to you to assume the response.

Cynthia DiMiceli

Board of Education Trustee

D’Amato’s claims mask the facts

To the Editor:

In discussing the congressional investigation into the Fast and Furious operation, “The administration is trying to pull a fast one” (June 28-July 4), Herald columnist Alfonse D’Amato referred to the “extraordinary use” of executive power in President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege.

The only “extraordinary” element is that, unlike Obama’s immediate predecessors from both parties — after three years in office — this was the first such use of the doctrine. Mr. D’Amato then states that two of the weapons from that program “were used to murder a federal border agent.” Though guns from the program were found near the scene, the bullet that killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was too deformed to trace to any weapon. It goes without saying that D’Amato does not mention a similar, albeit smaller program, carried out by the Bush Justice Department.

In relation to the contempt citation of Attorney General Eric Holder, Mr. D’Amato asks: “Don’t the American people deserve to know why a border agent was killed?” This is pure demagoguery. The documents at issue have nothing to do with the agent’s tragic murder.  Instead, they concern internal Department of Justice deliberations about earlier disclosures, some of which turned out to be false. While the failure to disclose is certainly worthy of concern, there is no reason to portray this as something it is not.

Finally, what is one to make of Mr. D’Amato’s bafflement at the assertion of executive privilege to cover DOJ documents? Surely the former senator must remember that the DOJ is a part of the executive branch of government. The only conclusion is that he is more concerned with fueling hatred for this president than in engaging in a factual, and perhaps even important, discussion of the issues. Sadly, this seems to be the only purpose of his column.

Jay K. Goldberg

Woodmere