I am responding to a letter printed in your May 6 edition submitted by a reader named Nancy D. Stein. I am familiar with Mrs. Filippi because I appeared at most of the meetings of the Herricks School Board. I never heard of anyone known as Nancy D. Stein. Her letter is a misguided personal attack of Mrs. Filippi notwithstanding Ms. Stein's vicious character assault after Mrs. Filippi's statement printed in the prior edition of The Illustrated News.

Ms. Stein ignored Mrs. Filippi's statements of the vicious attacks upon her and her family resulting from the stand she took against the school administration upon well grounded facts. Mrs. Filippi did not attack the teachers or the quality of the education given the students. If Ms. Stein would have attended the board meetings, she would have heard me addressing the board in simple and clear language. I was never critical of the teachers. Does it follow that if the students reflect a high standard of education that the board and the supervisor may engage in conduct without criticism? Does that justify a board to refrain from proper care of the buildings so the roofs would be required to be replaced long before the roofs outlived the reasonable life expectancy for roofs? Would that justify engaging an architect in New Hartford, NY to inspect the roofs and report the need to replace all roofs at a cost of approximately $6,500,000 despite the fact that all the roofs were installed for approximately $1,750,000?

Ms. Stein claims that she is a person "in the professional world," whatever that means. I write as a "professional." I was admitted to practice law in the State of New York in 1942. I am not aware that a member of a school board qualifies to be considered a "professional."

I never had a personal conversation with Mrs. Filippi nor any telephone conversation with her. I find that the information sent by the school board to the constituents of the district is totally void of factual matter and indeed to be deceptive. Even demands for information under the Freedom of Information Law is disguised to avoid disclosing all information. Another device employed is the charge per page at 25 cents a page and then offering a 6-pound package of just the report of the New Hartford architect showing why all of the roofs have to be replaced. Ms. Stein cannot offer any information relating to the roof repairs, not because she may not understand the significance of the documents but solely from the fact that she doesn't care about anything except the accomplishments of the students. I am not as much interested in the accomplishments of the "good students." I would like to be told whether there are students who, for any number of reasons, may be having difficulty raising their standing.

I have been told that when one taxpayer stated that he is faced with a burdensome tax bill he was told, "If you can't afford it, move out." Perhaps Mrs. Filippi heard a similar story.

Ms. Stein's bold announcement that she will be voting yes for the school budget is her way of recognizing that such a decision is "doing the best for our community." I studied the problem for several years now and I can assure Ms. Stein that any intelligent person would vote "no" to this budget. Among the reasons for the negative vote is the underlying recognition that no one informed the community of the board's failure to disclose the essential financial data requiring this bloated budget.

Perhaps she can explain the process whereby the school board announces that they had a "surplus" of $2.5 million and then recommended that the surplus be placed in a "reserve account" and, having done that, the board may now request another budget of $76 million. Perhaps the board may then have another "surplus," this time of $5 million, which could be added to the "reserve fund." Is a school board to be congratulated every time they impose a tax which leads to a "surplus" and permit the board to rename the fund at the expense of the taxpayers?

It is regrettable that Ms. Stein had to engage in this vicious attack upon a former school board member who had the courage to speak out against the kind of conduct which led to the exposure of the Roslyn School District's shameful history. Perhaps Ms. Stein can explain how the roofing contracts, after the creation of the new "reserve account," was awarded to the same company which was selected by the New Hartford, NY architect to examine the roofs and report the deficiencies in all of the roofs. According to Ms. Stein's supreme logic, the fact that the district has so many bright students the board and the superintendent should never have to explain how they administered the taxes. I do not believe that the superintendent of the Roslyn School District relied upon a similar assertion when challenged to explain the waste of $15 million in the Roslyn School District.

Samuel Kirschenbaum