Farmingdale Observer Floral Park Dispatch Garden City Life Glen Cove Record Pilot Great Neck Record Hicksville Illustrated News Levittown Tribune Manhasset Press Massapequan Observer Mineola American New Hyde Park Illustrated News Oyster Bay Enterprise Pilot Plainview Herald Port Washington News Roslyn News Syosset Jericho Tribune Three Village Times Westbury Times Boulevard Magazine Features Calendar Search Add An Event Classified Contacting Anton News

LongIsland.com Logo An Official Newspaper of the
LongIsland.Com Internet Community

News Sports Opinion Obituaries Contents
Opinion

The past issue of the Port News contained some erroneous facts and innuendoes that must be set straight. The salary structure of the Port Washington Police District commissioner was addressed and painstakingly reviewed by the Charter Revision Committee. The old system left itself wide open to abuse and constant questioning of the record keeping. The new system has been working with no problems. The old law (which is still in effect for Improvement Districts) provides for up to $80 per day of service x 365 days which could cost the taxpayers $29,200 per commissioner per year. By law a day of service could be a short meeting, the signing of a paper, or a visit to the office. This pay added to the estimated health insurance cost of $8,000 that commissioners are entitled to give a total potential cost of $37,200 per commissioner per year. The Charter revision committee worked up a formula that was based on the past budgeted salary of $8,300 per commissioner plus the health insurance cost of $8,000 for a total of $16,300/year. The new charter provided for the current flat salary of $16,000 but no longer gives health insurance. Thus if anything the commissioners voted themselves a decrease of $300/year. In reality the commissioners agreed upon ending a potential cost of $37,200/year thus a $21,200 savings or 57 percent reduction. The new charter fixes the salaries far lower than the maximum legally allowed any Improvement District. Why would the public want to force the commissioners to raise it back up? In an ad, also appearing in this paper it was alleged that Mr. Duncan and the Charter Revision Committee didn't look at Improvement District law. This is far from the truth; the committee reviewed many aspects of Town, Village and Improvement District law and drew from the best of each or drafted its own better provisions. The Charter Revision Committee likewise did submit a term limit provision, but it was turned down by The New York State Legislature. We then resubmitted that provision a second time and The State again denied it. Jim Duncan has been a major contributor to the committee but had only one of the 12 votes. As soon as he became commissioner his voting rights on the committee ceased. There was and is no conflict of interest. Further the provisions of the charter that were submitted to Albany had the unanimous vote of all Charter Revision Committee members. It likewise had the approval of all the past commissioners who voted on it. The NY State Senate, the Assembly, and the Governor all voted in favor of the present charter. To allege a conflict of interest or impropriety is uncalled for. To misinform the public on these issues is irresponsible. Before anyone rallies to change the charter they should at least get the facts straight. The charter and question/comment forms are available at the library or police headquarters, and we have always been available for questions.

Steven Kaplan

Port Washington Police District

Charter Revision Committee

Spokesperson




| antonnews.com home | Email the Port Washington News |
Copyright ©1999 Anton Community Newspapers, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
LinkExchange
LinkExchange Member