In attending the East Williston School Board meeting on June 17, I noticed the following words were being used: "character assassination" and "divisiveness" during "Open Time."

A point was made that character assassination was used against one of the candidates. By the same token, an attempt was made to distort the record of a then sitting member of the board who was running for re-election. I would ask anyone who finds character assassination to be offensive, as to whether they also find distortion to be equally offensive. There can be no differentiation between the two.

As to divisiveness. Mrs. Landau is calling for the board to establish a policy which would bar any member of the board from actively endorsing a candidate. If ever there was a case of hypocrisy, we have it in what Mrs. Landau is proposing. Mrs. Landau has conveniently forgotten that in 1999 two current board members endorsed a member of the board who was up for re-election. Mrs. Landau certainly knew of this endorsement. However, it appears she found nothing improper about this endorsement. Why not? They were board members who were endorsing a candidate. That is exactly what Mrs. Landau did not object to in that year.

How is it that it wasn't a matter of concern then, but apparently is to her at this time? Why now, and not then, is she calling for the board to institute such a policy? I think the members of the school district are entitled to get the rationale behind this request by Mrs. Landau. Why is such a policy valid today, but was not her concern three years ago?

I think we would all appreciate a response from Mrs. Landau.

In the event the board adopts a policy of barring members from endorsing candidates, then there are two additional provisions that would have to be incorporated in order to prevent someone from circumventing the policy.

* No board member may use his or her status as a "resident or private citizen of the community" as a basis to endorse a candidate. They would be easily identifiable as members of the board.

* No board member's family would be permitted to endorse a candidate by virtue of the fact that someone in their family is serving as a member of the board. The reason for this should be quite obvious.

Failure to adopt these two provisions would be tantamount to weakening the established policy and would provide a loophole for someone to take advantage.

On more point: Mrs. Landau seems to have lapses of memory. In her June 7th letter to the editor she states "...voting for the school budget and board seats was held in the Wheatley Auditorium...state law required the tradition to change, and we now vote in booths on election day like other districts."

In actuality, the budget vote and the vote for candidates were held on two separate dates. This was changed to the present system by a referendum vote of the community-not the state.

Julius Cohen