This letter is in response to the Letter to the Editor by Thomas Sobczak, published in the January 24th edition of The Westbury Times relating to Republican calls for councilmanic districts in North Hempstead.

Mr. Sobczak harshly takes the North Hempstead Republican Party (and its Chairman Peter Cavallaro) to task for calling for council districts in the town. The position taken by Mr. Sobczak and his fellow Democrats is quite disingenuous. Democratic Town Supervisor May Newburger has supposedly supported this concept for a dozen years, yet has taken no meaningful steps to implement districts. The Republicans of this town realize that council districts represent more responsive and representative government and, under Mr. Cavallaro's leadership, have called for councilmanic districts. Whether or not this would benefit one party or the other does not change the basic merit of the idea. Mr. Sobczak's questioning of the Republican Party's (and Mr. Cavallaro's) intentions belies the fact that the North Hempstead Democrats have been entrenched in North Hempstead for 12 years, and that they, and their colleagues throughout Long Island, have consistently called for council districts when it suited them. Now, in a Democratically controlled town, they have retreated from their position. Mr. Sobczak's cynicism is palpable.

It must also be pointed out that unlike many other parts of Nassau County, North Hempstead has a history of split boards. There have been elected Democrats in the town in every decade since at least the 1970s. Now, with changing demographics, it is increasingly difficult for a balanced representation in town government without council districts.

The courts have recognized political fairness and equity as a valid reason to support council districts. Mr. Cavallaro and the North Hempstead Republican Party should be given credit for being progressive, forward thinking and concerned that the entire town, not just the "northern tier," be represented. Unfortunately, Mr. Sobczak's cynicism and partisanship has not allowed him to be objective.

John L. Aloia