Letters to the Editor: Thank you

Peconic
Thank you
I just wanted to write and say thank you for the lovely article you wrote about me and my farm stand (“Still at her post after 53 years,” July 3).
I’ve been reading The Suffolk Times for years, and what I’ve always liked best is how you focus on the local people and their stories. To see mine written up in the paper again after so many years touches me. It means a lot to me, who’s lived here a long time and seen the town change.
The way you told the story made me feel proud of what I’ve built over the years, season by season. And it was nice to hear from people who stopped by after reading the piece.
So, thank you to Deborah Wetzel for taking time to come by and listen to me. Keep doing what you’re doing!
Dorothy Konarski
Cutchogue
Money for nothing
I think there is some information voters should be aware of the next time they head for the polls. The minimum salary for a member of the House of Representatives (i.e., Nick LaLota) is $175,000. If a member joins leadership in the House, they get raises, up to Speaker ($225,000) — depending on the stops along the way.
This, of course, includes first-class health care at no cost to the member. I’m quite certain some sort of expense account is also included. That’s a lot of money for doing nothing.
I think this is reason enough for the Republicans, still afraid of incurring Trump’s wrath, to lock step behind the Big Beautiful Bill. They have a path to lifetime employment and certainly don’t want to screw it up by voting for their constituents instead of themselves. After all, they could be forced into a primary, at great risk to their employment. Who needs that?
Jeffrey Sullivan
Cutchogue
Limits of discretion
Government boards are required by law to allow the public to speak at public hearings. At all public meetings, the public has absolute legal rights to attend, watch and listen, and has limited legal rights to speak. Boards may even allow members of the public to speak at executive sessions.
Free speech at public meetings enables community concerns to be heard. The public can provide testimony at meetings to share knowledge and views with government bodies. The public is therefore able to directly engage with official organizations to influence positions and decisions.
Government organizations, whether hosting meetings or with supervisory authority over hosting organizations, may create rules and policy to limit the times and contents of public testimony. Chairpersons have discretionary authority to admit and limit public testimony. However, it is unacceptable for rules, policy and chairpersons to prohibit all public testimony.
Town of Southold Planning Board work-session agendas include the boilerplate statement: “The Planning Board may add or remove applications from the agenda upon its discretion, without further notice. Applications may not be heard in the order they appear on this agenda.” As these statements provide, authority to revise agendas is properly conditioned by the requirement for the Board to use discretion. The Board’s discretion is broad, but it must be exercised reasonably.
Planning Board work-session agendas also state: “Testimony from the public may not be solicited nor received.” No discretion is included. By this false statement the Board denies having authority to solicit and receive, and the public’s right to provide, testimony. Prohibiting all public speech from public meetings is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. This false statement renders meetings corrupt and illegal. The confusion reflected in this false statement is also infecting meetings of Town of Southold committees.
The good news is that if we recognize and understand these issues, we can change these problems into opportunities.
Benja Schwartz