I write in response to two Oct. 19 Letters to the Editor on the subject of the Munsey Park bond issue where the board unanimously approved a $3 million resolution to repair our dangerous roads and save an important pond. Let me first say that I am sincerely grateful that Messrs. Syracuse and McGivney, the two authors to whom I respond today, are as protective of our village and its residents as they are because neither disputed the need for the necessary repairs. The objection was only to the process leading to the vote to raise the money for the work. Both men are clearly perturbed by what they believe was a course of action taken that was inadequately disclosed to the public. I most respectfully disagree and write to convince not only those who did not attend the meeting that the mayor and board's action was proper but hopefully Messrs. Syracuse and McGivney as well.

I moved to Munsey Park two years ago because I wanted two things: a great community and a great commute to NYC. The seller told me that the atrocious gutters on Ryder Road were going to be repaired imminently. Almost two years later, when the work still had not been done, I notified Mayor Harry Nicolaides that I was putting the village on actual notice of its breach of its duty to maintain the roads in good repair and would quickly sue should my 2-year-old son get injured from the dangers awaiting him at the edge of our property. When I learned about the impending vote for the now approved resolution (an important point to note here is that clearly I did have adequate notice!) I went door to door, gave out fliers, and encouraged about a dozen people to attend a board meeting in the rain during a simultaneous blackout on our street. For the record, these residents were not difficult to persuade: 100 percent of the residents I approached either attended or gave me a specific reason why they could not. I represent to Messrs. Syracuse and McGivney that I could have convinced a much larger number of residents to attend but I truly believed that filling about three out of the four rows of seats in the room (more than a "handful" as stated by Mr. Syracuse) would be enough to get our message across to the mayor and the board.

At the meeting, the board acted entirely within the law and unanimously passed a bond resolution evidencing our officials' commitment to not only keep us safe but to do so in the smartest financial manner. Nevertheless, two well-intentioned gentlemen still felt that the notice given to the public was not sufficient and vocalized that opinion ad nauseum. Let's pretend that notice was required, which it was not, these officials still ran a front-page article about the then upcoming vote in this publication as close as possible to the meeting so that it would be fresh on residents' minds. Mr. McGivney says that this vote was taken "a mere six days [after the front-page article in the Manhasset Press ran] and labeled said notice a "stealth press release." Does anyone really agree that a front-page article in the most widely read local publication was surreptitious? I remain comfortable knowing that I received more notice than was required.

Messrs. Syracuse and McGivney are clearly very active residents and have served our community in the past. The humbling fact remains, however, that most of the rest of us are not nearly as active as perhaps we should be. We simply elect our officials into office, even if by small numbers (I say this in response to Messrs. Syracuse and McGivney's implicit suggestion that our officials' authority is diminished because they were elected by a small number of votes), and unless and until we want other representation and vote accordingly, the officials retain our collective trust to act responsibly. This is, in fact, is how a democracy works. Here, our officials finally made a decision and went forward with it. It's not that waiting another month for public debate, as suggested by Messrs Syracuse and McGivney, was a bad suggestion, it is just that it would have wasted good time after bad given the history of this issue and therefore did not seem logical to everyone in the room save Messrs. Syracuse and McGivney. The fact that there is a 30-day period in which only 20 percent (much less than a majority) of the registered voters can take opposing action only proves how prudent this process really is. Although it did not need to do so, the board expeditiously sent a letter to all residents informing them of the decision and their subsequent rights.

In conclusion, I believe that the mayor and the board have exceeded their legal duty and met their ethical duty to Munsey Park residents. To hear an admission that the mayor and board made a mistake the first time around and had learned from it was refreshing and further validated their decision. I've learned that you can't please everyone in life but you can try and in this situation the mayor and the board did try. As Mr. Syracuse so rightly wrote, this necessary work is "an issue that should not be in dispute." So let's not dispute anymore and just move on.

Matthew S. Seidner