To paraphrase William Shakespeare, "the man doth protest too much." While it has been my policy not to answer false accusations during or after a campaign, I find it necessary to answer Neal Roher because he continues his vicious accusations. Witness his May 30 letter to the editor, which is beyond the election campaign and continues to impute my reputation for honesty. My letter today is not sour grapes. With all humility, I am very proud of my accomplishments over the past three years. I will not allow Mr. Roher, or anyone, to question my honesty or, just as importantly, the honesty of the fine community members who support me.

First, I will address his last campaign flier where he falsely accuses me of sending a letter "calculated to appear as an endorsement." We must realize that when one is deceitful, he believes everyone else functions on the same low level. When I said I had the experience and knowledge to be a member of the board of education, I backed it up with substance. That is why I sent a copy of the letter I received from the New York State School Boards Association to the community and mentioned it in my bio. The superintendent, at the April school board meeting, read portions of this letter to the community. The letter acknowledged and commended me for the time I devoted to honing my skills as a school board member, and keeping myself informed and current with issues that affected the educational community. Only someone with a devious mind would interpret it differently.

The letter he refers to from parents appears to be just that - an expression and hope for civility and fairness. Since it addressed the very campaign tactics used by Mr. Roher, he attempts to assign that letter to my campaign. For Mr. Roher to denigrate a letter from fellow community members in an attempt to deny them their constitutional right of expression is totally reprehensible. No doubt, the divisive climate he and his supporters have unfortunately brought back to this community is presumably the reason for the letter's anonymity.

In addition, Mr. Roher should remember the lack of honesty of his group when they told our community that an addition couldn't be made to the North Side School, that the Willets Road School couldn't be updated, and the only solution was a fourth building. Commencing with my election three years ago, the work the board did as a team disproved the statements of his group and alleviated the divisiveness that existed in the community. Even in the planning stages, his group took a negative stance when we created a safer traffic pattern at Willets Road, which included a traffic light. They said we would never get the traffic light - and they were wrong again. All the revisionist's history will not take away the proud accomplishments of my three years on the board.

Now, to his May 30 letter to the editor, Mr. Roher again questions my honesty. The fact is, some of Mr. Roher's supporters became disenchanted when they realized some of his claims were questionable. The facts are clear. Mr. Roher stated "I am an instructor at Hofstra, I teach at Hofstra." There are many community members who are in some way connected with Hofstra and realized his misrepresentation. The 2001-02 and the 2002-03 Hofstra Bulletins do not list his name among the teaching staff. If one goes onto the Hofstra website seeking the name Roher, the answer that comes back is "no occurrences of 'roher' were found in the document." An enquiry to the Hofstra Department of Human Resources (personnel office) generated the response, "We have no record of employment for Neal J. Roher." If all these facts are coincidental and unfortunate mistakes, then Mr. Roher's complaint should be with Hofstra, not with me. His characterizations of me are, what have in recent years become, a lawyer's new defense. The victim - this community - is the perpetrator, and the perpetrator portrays himself as the victim.

Let's be clear. When an individual is hired to conduct a Dialogue Night at Wheatley, or a presentation is made to our students in conjunction with the Lincoln Center Program, these people are not considered "teachers" in the East Williston School District. Therefore, when one states he is "an instructor" (which, like "professor" is considered a position at a university), and "teaches at Hofstra," it is understood that he teaches a class on a regularly scheduled basis to a group of Hofstra students, either undergraduate or graduate. Anything short of that is misrepresentation.

Certainly, he "doth protest too much." However, he has never, never told us in detail, what, if anything, he does at Hofstra.

Mr. Roher owes us an apology. We - my supporters and I - are, and have always been, impeccably honest, and take great pride in setting the highest example for our students, teachers, and community.

Robert Kushner