Letters to the editor MUST be accompanied by your daytime and evening phone numbers for verification purposes. Letters without phone numbers cannot be considered for publication. Letters must include first and last names. Short letters have a better chance of being selected for publication. We do not publish anonymous letters.
Nutter’s pick shows
a lack of compassion
I am writing to show how our new mayor has not thought out who he has hired to be on his staff.
Mr. Everett A. Gillison is being hired by Mayor Michael Nutter to be the deputy mayor for public safety. This Mr. Gillison was the lawyer who defended Solomon Montgomery, who killed police officer Gary Skerski, who was responding to a holdup at a bar.
I have this question to Mr. Nutter after one of his reps said that this is the best man for the job:
Mr. Nutter, would this be the best man for the job if this man represented the killer of one of your family members?
You spout that we are all a family here in Philadelphia, and then you go and do this to family members of the Philadelphia Police Department. Would you have hired this person if he represented the person that killed your brother? Mr. Nutter, this man killed my brother — my brother police officer.
I do not believe that you could slap us any more in the face like you have just done. This person now will have to deal with the Philadelphia Police Department and the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5 that represents all of us. You could not be in the same room as him.
I ask, please start this term off right and do not let this person be on your staff.
But like all letters to you, Mr. Nutter, from the everyday Joe citizen, you most likely will not respond. But surprise me and please answer the above question.
Robert W. McCann, retired police officer
Rhawnhurst
A tree for a life
is a fair trade
While reading Natalie Minkovsky’s letter last week (There are plenty of places in which to fight cancer), I would like to inform her about my stance on the expansion plans of the Fox Chase Cancer Center.
My opinion expressed the need to save lives and it also stated that I’m for nature conservation as much as the next person.
While your points are well taken, doesn’t Fox Chase Cancer Center already teach preventative measures to fight cancer? I also applaud your research and service, but I have a hard time agreeing with your alternatives.
I would also like to respond to your comments concerning a "false dilemma." Why is the choice of saving lives over saving the park a problem for a cancer researcher such as yourself? If I’m not mistaken, some of the drugs that are used in cancer treatment come at the expense of depleted rain forests. So aren’t some of the drug companies to blame? Also, do the alternatives that you mentioned have the reputation and record of Fox Chase Cancer Center?
My sole reason for my letter was to ask the question, "Doesn’t the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one?"
I lost my mom to cancer, and everyone that reads this paper either lost a loved one or knows someone that lost the good fight with cancer. During the Christmas season I have great, loving memories of her, and that’s when I begin to miss her.
If you ask me, 19 acres of land is more than a fair enough trade to have a healthy mom again. Everyone that has been affected by cancer would agree with me.
My question to you, Natalie, is a simple one. If you’ve lost someone that you love to this despicable disease, what would you trade to have them back and active in your life? That’s the main point of the good work that the Fox Chase Cancer Center provides.
Kevin M. Coughlin
Fox Chase
Focus on the
true necessities
Something has to be done to the area across from Stephen Decatur School other than spending a few thousand dollars to install picnic tables and benches so teens have a place to hang out or joggers and walkers can take a break while looking at a filthy, trash-strewn school, or planting more trees in an already wooded area.
A better alternative to this plan would be on the other side of Torrey Road by replacing the fence and cleaning the underbrush along Academy Road.
Our local deli located in the shopping center makes an effort every year to rid this area of trash through organized cleanup crews. Being a lifelong resident of Parkwood Manor, I am concerned about our future, so now is the time for the community to voice their opinion (especially with the new mayoral regime) on how not to spend money for aesthetics but for necessity to restore this neighborhood to its original intended purpose — a great place to live.
William Miles Jr.
Parkwood
Neighborhood pride
is a rare commodity
The weekend before New Year’s I had my sisters in town for a visit. We decided to go for a walk around the park. We started our walk on Ryan Avenue and proceeded onto Rowland Avenue. I was bragging to them what a nice walk it is, until we came across Lincoln’s Bowl. What a disgrace.
Not only did I have to defend the horrible paint job, I had to defend the graffiti that is sprayed all over the building including the small building on the field, and the empty cases of beer and beer cans that were thrown all over the place. I was so embarrassed. Then I was telling them how the mile-marker signs were placed along the route. When we got to them, someone had removed the signs or knocked them down. The only thing left was the black pole and the American flag.
I try to talk about my neighborhood with pride, and something like this makes it almost impossible! It’s becoming harder and harder for me to defend.
Kathy Scannell
Mayfair
Hey Lauren, why are
you blaming the victim?
This is a response to a letter from Lauren Fritsky, Crime victims made themselves easy targets, in the Jan. 3 edition.
As a student at Father Judge and a former wrestler there, I must say you should stay off the offensive if you’re not going to read the full story. His iPod was actually in his sports locker, Lauren, since of course he was on the wrestling team.
We hold our practices after school in a separate building where students usually bring their iPods to exercise. And even then, you’re allowed to have an iPod in the school building as long as you keep it in your locker during school hours, which this young man did. So if you were to actually think before you speak, you would know that he was following school rules and in no way made himself an easy target.
And finally, you shouldn’t be telling the victim to change, you should ask yourself why you need to triple-lock your apartment at night. The fact is that although this isn’t the 1950s anymore, crime shouldn’t be looked over and civilians shouldn’t need to be paranoid and oversecured.
Kevin Mason
Fox Chase
• • •
To Lauren Fritsky who lives in the suburbs:
It seems as though you missed the point of my entire letter. It is not whether or not my son or his friend took an iPod to school, it’s the responsibility or lack thereof for people’s possessions. I guess in your world it is OK to steal. I don’t know if you have children or not, but if you did I am sure you would feel differently.
My son has the right to listen to his iPod on the way to and from school if that is what he chooses. He does not take it to class and listen to it in school instead of learning as you suggest.
Are we supposed to be afraid and only use our valuables in the privacy of our homes for fear someone will steal them from us?
The point of the letter — because you did not get it — is what kind of society are we that we allow people to steal from us and just roll over and try not to do something about it? Just because my son’s friend made the mistake of not locking up the iPod in his locker, does that give someone the right to steal it? And by the way, we triple-lock our doors in the city as well. So what?
Did you ever leave your cell phone in your purse during working hours? I hope not, because that also would be appropriate, huh? But, does it give your co-worker the right to steal it?
Marianne Murphy
Pine Valley
• • •
First of all, I feel bad for Marianne Murphy’s son, who had his iPod stolen. My daughter also had her iPod stolen, which read "Happy Sweet Sixteen, Love Mom and Dad xoxoxo," and she, too, was at field hockey at the time.
As for your school comment, what do you think they use these iPods for? Uhhh, to walk to and from school. They’re not using them during class. Didn’t you have a Walkman back in the day? What do you mean, "take personal accountability?"
They are teenagers, and most likely the person who stole the iPods are their fellow classmates and maybe even friends of theirs. The only thing they are guilty of is trusting people. Well, lesson learned. You can’t trust anybody. Sad but true.
Please! Lauren Fritsky lives in Jenkintown (the suburbs). You are a hop, skip and jump from Mayfair and you should keep your door triple-locked. You’re kind of heartless. I don’t think you have many friends. Happy New Year.
Jackie Griffaton
Mayfair
There’s nothing obnoxious
about protests
I am a sign-holding protester and I am not obnoxious. As a vegan and an active advocate for animals, I was pleased to read the letter to the editor, Respect all life: Drive carefully, in the Jan. 3 edition. Of course the death of the squirrel was upsetting, but the author’s message was wonderful.
However, I found the content of the letter to be unsettling: "I’m not one of those sign-holding protesters that will try to obnoxiously try to get my point across."
I organize educational outreach and peaceful demonstrations to spread the word about animal advocacy issues, and those events have educated thousands of people. Many of our events include a sign-holding component, and our form of outreach is not obnoxious.
We present factual information about animal issues that may not be readily available to the general public and allow people to decide for themselves what stance they will take.
Animal exploitation is running rampant in this world, from pet stores selling animals born in deplorable breeding mills to the inhumanity of factory farming. Businesses go out of their way to hide these atrocities. Why wouldn’t they? They are getting rich from the suffering of non-human animals.
Dedicated advocates for any cause will need to participate in community activities so they can come face to face with the people who want to know the truth but do not know where to find it. With little money and limited time (most advocates are volunteers), how are advocates supposed to get the word out to large amounts of people? Holding signs in high traffic areas is a very efficient method. Often the signs will display photos or slogans that prompt people to think differently or direct them to Web sites filled with useful information.
The author of the Respect all life: Drive carefully letter, Angela DeNofa, seems like a very compassionate, altruistic person. The animal advocacy community sure could use a few more people like her and a few less people judging a certain method of the movement before seeing it done in an effective, peaceful way.
I ask Angela and others to visit one of our Web sites — www.BoycottMonsterPets.com — to read a bit about how we present information on the Internet. I invite Angela to then stop by one of weekly Saturday events before deeming every sign-holding activist obnoxious.
For more information, I can be reached through the contact page on the Web site listed.
Rachel Ogden
Spokeswoman for Reach Out for Animal Rights (ROAR), Westville, N.J.
• • •
I enjoyed Angela DeNofa’s letter and was heartened by her compassion for the dying squirrel, however I was disappointed in the first sentence of the last paragraph: "I’m not one of those sign-holding protesters that will try to obnoxiously try to get my point across."
I feel that the remark was uncalled for and a slap in the face to everyone who gives their time to try to make a statement.
I have been a sign-holding protester on many occasions. Last summer I was a sign-holding protester at a demonstration against the circus, trying to show the cruelty and neglect that often goes on behind the scenes of what seems like a family event.
I’m also a sign-holding protester on most Saturdays against a pet store whose animals come from puppy mills, and have had former customers tell us that the animals sold were sometimes ill and needed hundreds of dollars in veterinarian care.
Though not everyone agrees with our position on those issues, we were not accused of being obnoxious. We only gave out literature when it is requested and cooperated with the police civil affairs unit. How is that being "obnoxious"?
Of course there are others who are sign-holding protesters for other issues, pro-life/pro-choice demonstrators, pro/anti-war demonstrators to name a few. Are they also obnoxious and their messages irrelevant? It’s sad that such a benevolent letter seemed to end with this implication.
George W. Wilson Jr.
Burholme
A triple-win situation
to the Scout dilemma
Judging from her letter (The Scouts are discriminatory, Northeast Times, Dec. 27), Margaret Butwin clearly suffers from a bad case of political correctness. Let’s count the ways:
First, she resorts to the standard leftist argument ad hominem when she refers to Tom Lacey as "foolish, intolerant and hateful towards homosexuals." A question, Margie: what in your mind is wise, tolerant, and loving toward homosexuals? That we should all be willing to go to bed with them and allow them access to children?
Second, she accuses the Boy Scouts of acting in "a discriminatory manner" because the organization correctly understands that it is not good to allow homosexuals access to young boys, and that the parents of nearly all Scouts do not want their children exposed to such wisdom, tolerance and love.
Another question, Margie: is it acceptable for lefties to force their beliefs on a private organization (the Scouts), but not acceptable for its members to stand up for their beliefs?
Needless to say, the only one on these pages who is sadly ill-informed and misdirected is yourself, and I just hope that your ignorance is not contagious and that one day you will realize that young people need to be educated in the normal and natural uses of sexuality.
In the meantime, why doesn’t the city simply sell the property in question to the Scouts? This would create a triple-win situation: The city makes money from the sale, the Boy Scouts keep their headquarters, and the youth of the city continue to benefit from the wholesome activities the Scouts provide.
I call upon city officials to transcend political correctness and act in a responsible and rational manner on this score.
George Tomezsko
Fox Chase
Torture cannot
be justified
Regarding two letters in the Jan. 3 edition disagreeing with Father Tim Griffin’s opposition to the use of torture by the Bush administration, I would like to cast a vote in his support.
Those people who have actually been subjected to physical torture — as I have, and our Vietnam hero Sen. John McCain of Arizona has — are strongly against the use of this degrading and contemptible horror, also used by Hitler’s Nazis and Stalin’s Soviets.
One of the letter writers referred to his background as a "former" official. As such, he should be aware of the concept of honor. An American officer simply does not engage in the dishonorable business of torturing helpless people.
Perhaps he just skipped the chapter on honor in his officer’s handbook. As for myself, a "former" Word War II enlisted man, perhaps I just can’t understand how a "former" officer can try to justify the dishonorable practice of torture.
Joseph P. Wall
Lawndale
Nobody could be worse
than the guy there now
Regarding Bill Stout’s letter last week (A job just perfect for the first gentleman), your vitriol and hatred of the Clintons is surpassed only by the muckraking right-wing radio personalities who infest the airways trying to sell us on their "way" as being the right way. If you have issues about Mrs. Clinton, you have the right to vote for someone else.
Regardless of who wins the election this fall, whether Republican or Democrat, male or female, they can’t do any worse than the arrogant, ignorant, incompetent individual who holds that position today. Oh, and by the way, where are those WMDs?
Ron Zabielski
Mayfair
DROP the gravy train
for greedy politicians
As I see it
By John Scanlon
I can’t believe it. I’m flipping through paperwork about the city’s pension jackpot giveaway, the so-called DROP program, and I see here that it’s officially known as the Deferred Retirement Option Plan.
And all this time I thought DROP stood for Delivering Riches to Our Politicians.
The 8-year-old program is getting a lot of attention now because some city bigwigs have profited handsomely, or will be very soon. Just more than three years ago, former Fire Commissioner Harold Hairston ended four decades of city employment with a DROP windfall of nearly $551,000.
Four years ago Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson pocketed about $390,000 from DROP and then was "rehired" by Mayor John Street — and received his annual salary until two weeks ago, when he retired for good and held a farewell news conference to paint a rosy picture of the violent crime that has mugged Philly’s reputation during his unremarkable tenure.
The best part for Johnson is that, like Hairston before him, he too collects his regular pension.
It’s hard not to love this perk. Even Street, who was very mayoral when, at one point of his administration, he questioned the financial wisdom of DROP for a city wincing from fiscal heartburn, sounded as if he’d just received a check from Regis Philbin while giving his own farewell news conference in late December.
The ex-mayor rambled about concerns for his finances and survival after leaving office. He’ll get a roughly $452,000 lump-sum payment from DROP. He’ll also get a yearly $115,000 pension.
"This DROP thing," Street gushed at his news conference, "actually is a pretty good thing."
No, it’s actually an outlandish thing. Which is why new Mayor Michael Nutter, who had real problems during his City Council days with elected officials tapping into the program, should make a priority of pulling the plug on Delivering Riches to Our Politicians.
I do want to make one thing clear. It’s hard to fault anyone who pockets the cash. I too would have signed up for DROP faster than you could say "Joan Krajewski" — more on her in a moment — and lined up behind Johnson and Street for my own farewell news conference. That these public servants would take the money and run is human nature. It’s the mechanism that permits them to do it that’s flawed.
The basic premise is this: A city employee who reaches the normal retirement age of 55 and has at least 10 years of credited pension service can sign up for approval in the DROP program. The worker, in theory, has retired but continues in his city job for four years, when his official retirement is mandated, with his monthly retirement benefit accumulating in a tax-deferred, interest-bearing account until that time.
The worker leaves for good with a lump-sum DROP payment and also starts collecting his yearly city pension.
Ever since City Council unanimously endorsed a bill to start DROP in June 1999, during the days of Mayor Ed Rendell, it has evolved from an enticement to delay the retirements of key city employees — firefighters and police officers in particular — to a money trough that generously feeds a loosely interpreted definition of "city employee."
Take, for example, the case of City Councilwoman Joan Krajewski. And City Commissioner Marge Tartaglione, while we’re at it.
Tartaglione, an elected Democrat who has administered the city’s elections for more than three decades, just received more than $308,000 in DROP pension money. Krajewski, the Northeast’s 6th district councilwoman since 1980, got more than $297,000.
She signed up for the DROP program in 2004. She’s also a tad touchy about the money issue. That’s because Krajewski, 73, and Tartaglione, 74, enjoy a special privilege — they received their DROP money and they’re permitted to stay on the job, the result of a very charitable opinion by City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr., who decided they’re not bound by the required retirement after four years in the DROP program because voters had returned them to office.
Ah, but there was a shifty way to get Krajewski and Tartaglione their DROP money. They just had to retire for one day — which they did on Jan. 4 — and then be "rehired" to start their new four-year terms.
Although their pensions will be frozen during that time, they will continue to collect a paycheck. For Krajewski, that means a $110,000 salary and down the road, when she does formally retire, the start of an annual $74,000 pension. The problem here is that Krajewski’s take on things is contradictory. She has insisted that DROP is for all city employees, with no delineation in the code that excludes elected officials. That’s true, but it also would mean she should have been bound to the same mandate of compulsory retirement after four years in DROP — like any other city employee.
But she conveniently deflects that notion by emphasizing that voters returned her to work. "My people elected me," she told the Times last week.
That’s true, too, but it also means she’s not exactly a city employee. She’s a governmental servant. The city can’t hire or fire her. Only the people can. And that takes four years, until the next election. If anything, the DROP program enables opportunism to supplant civic duty as the motivation to run for City Council.
Krajewski, who rose to power when a postage stamp was just 15 cents, likes to think that a voter mandate returned her to office in November for an eighth straight term. The truth is that her Republican opponent, Michael Ebsworth, was just the latest lightweight to be blown away like a feather. He raised no campaign money. He basically didn’t campaign. And he exuded pre-election confidence by telling the Times that he expected to be "wiped out" once the votes were counted.
He was, 19,122 to 4,520.
Another easy election. A hefty DROP payout. A city attorney’s lame opinion that permits her to defy compulsory retirement and keep showing up at City Hall. Joan Krajewski is rolling snake eyes.
We’re pulling for Mayor Nutter to uphold his pledge to push for significant changes to the DROP program. Resolving the vagaries of "city employee" would be a good start. Nutter opposes the inclusion of elected officials in DROP, something he tried to address with a City Council bill that went nowhere in 2004, but that futility wasn’t a surprise.
Even now, Council could do the right thing by ditching the program or refining it to pre-empt abuses. But don’t count on them to willingly break their cookie jar, especially now that Council members Frank Rizzo, Frank DiCicco and Anna Verna — the Council president — have lifted the lid and applied for acceptance to DROP. And they too should be able to snub mandatory retirement in four years if re-elected — the "Krajewski clause" gives them the legal precedent to do so.
What’s happening now is what the city’s former finance director, Janice Davis, sagely foresaw more than three years ago. At that time a City Paper story reported on Davis’ comments before City Council’s Committee on Fiscal Stability — in particular her storm warnings that DROP should be discontinued because of an unexpected additional cost of $113 million to the city pension fund to accommodate the flood of participants.
Davis, in fact, doubted the need for DROP in Philly. It had been used elsewhere in the country with one specific aim — to entice workers to stay in their government jobs — but Davis told the committee that the number of longtime employees on the city payroll led her to believe that was one problem City Hall didn’t have, most likely because of a willingness to pay competitive salaries and provide solid benefit packages.
Her comments came only months after the city bestowed riches on its first wave of four-year DROP beneficiaries in 2003 — payments issued to roughly 800 workers, to the tune of $59 million.
Davis soon moved on to a new job in Atlanta. DROP, of course, is still with us. Beyond the questionable wisdom of doling out lump-sum pension jackpots in an era when City Council moans about huge budget deficits is one other fact of life that makes DROP so distasteful. City workers already enjoy benefits packages that are the envy of your typical working stiffs in the private sector who must shoulder the burden of retirement planning.
And DROP only widens that divide. Mayor Nutter must move swiftly to close it.
Just a couple of weeks ago, District Attorney Lynne Abraham told Times reporter Tom Waring that she agreed with others who contend that nothing in the DROP regulations prevents elected officials from making arrangements for a Brinks truck.
"Frankly," she said, "I don’t know what all the hoo-ha is about."
When her current term expires in 2009, a lump-sum DROP payment will make her about $416,496 richer. And off she’ll go to retirement and a pension.
Trust me on one thing. If Lynne Abraham wasn’t allowed to hop aboard the DROP gravy train, she’d be raising all kinds of hoo-ha. ••
John Scanlon is editor of the Northeast Times.
Share your opinion by e-mail
Click here to return to this week’s editorial . . .