OPEN LETTER TO JOY VESTAL

     Dear Joy,
Hey, you had to know this was coming your way, though indeed there is little hope or rather, expectation, of any insight on your part. Basically the question is this: Do you believe that it was any of David Israel's right or business to try to squash campaign ads outside of the Village, particularly when he knew that Code Enforcement left these signs alone and the complaint involved a synagogue with immediate financial consequences on them? In fact, the very sign of the synagogue's name, up for 16 years, now has to be changed or gain a variance. Do you believe this had anything to do with religion or simply was a political act and in any case, was this a moral act - yes or no? Indeed, is it a moral act to deny any political campaigning and literature within the Village? Simple enough. If you believe yes, it was moral and ok, then have the courage to say so and if you disagree, then have the moral courage to say no, it was not right.
     However, based on your record with the newspaper, I would expect your answer to mirror David Israel as you have turned the paper into a propaganda instrument for him, violated the very promise you made that is in every issue of the paper - that is that you will present both sides of an issue. That is long trashed, ignored and the paper has become a pennysaver for the Village with a very limited number of writers and very little of interest or information important to the readers, of which the numbers are dwindling as can be seen by the number and stacks of papers left unread and then trashed in the bins.
     Here, in fact, is a letter you would not publish because it either was written by Olga or it praised Phyllis, the opponent in  the UCO presidential campaign. Furthermore, Phyllis was told that her ads would be vetted! Really! Moral bankruptcy. Violation of all principles of journalism. But - the letter:
     Below is a copy of a letter by Olga to the editor of The Reporter (Rag) for the January issue which they refused to print.
     "Phyllis Richland is running an independent campaign. As President of UCO she would not be obligated to return favors. She is planning to choose the best and most qualified people to chair committees and will welcome people from both sides of the political spectrum. When problems arise, she will have discussion from both sides of the camp in order to find the best solution. This is exactly what the framers of our constitution did. They argued until they came to the Constitution we abide by today - not too bad. David Israel does not adhere to this approach. He prefers to find a solution to a problem by only taking advice from individuals who think like him. It's time for a new approach and I believe Phyllis Richland is the best candidate to give the Village the needed boost to forge ahead. She has the proven experience and the knowledge of UCO laws to more than qualify her to be the next president."
    I eagerly await your response - as does the rest of the Village.   Esther and concerned residents.