We don’t ordinarily turn the Opinion page over to public officials. It isn’t that they have nothing to say, it’s just that they have other channels for communicating with the public—their own Web sites, newsletters, public information officers, defense counsel, etc. And, usually, they use these other vehicles to toot their own horns. Why  turn over the readers’ space and ours for much of the same?

We make an exception tomorrow. We’re turned over a good portion of the Opinion page to Lee Kyriacou. He’s the executive director of the state Office of Real Property Services. He’s been in the local news quite a bit lately. He works with local officials trying to ensure that local property taxes are based on the most up-to-date assessment data. In most locales, property assessments are 50 and 60 years old,  which can mean that the owners of identical properties in the very same communities can end up with vastly different property tax bills. The difference can be thousands and thousands of dollars, depending upon the place and the length of time between reassessments.

You would think that kind of unfairness would be a rallying point for public officials. As perhaps you are aware, each and every one of our civil servants professes to care deeply about our financial well being, our economic health, blah blab blah. The reality is, too many use the public’s ignorance about revaluation and the political challenges associated with revaluation as excuses for sitting on their . . . hands. The institutionalized unfairness ought to be impetus enough for the officials to act. The rule of thumb is, post-reval, about a third of the residential owners in a given area will see their tax bill decline; a third will see increases; the remainder won’t see any change. A familiar analogy: the size of the pizza stays the same; it’s the size of the slices that changes.

Anyway, Kyriacou shares our space tomorrow to talk about his work, the reassessment process, and related matters. For more discussion about reassessment, you might tune into the Editorial Spotlight interview we hosted earlier this week with local officials, including some stand up folks rolling up their sleeves to ensure tax fairness. Wish there were more of them. To watch, go to Editorial Spotlight, click “on demand” and select the video from the menu on the right.

If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard it a hundred times—don’t write something on a social networking site or the Internet that you wouldn’t want broadcast to the masses. Apparently some police officers and public employees in Harrison haven’t gotten the message yet after derogatory and racist comments they wrote on Facebook were revealed and printed in today’s Journal News. Read the whole story here, as well as view a screen grab of one of the officer’s facebook pages with some of the comments, including those about Town Supervisor Joan Walsh.

Meanwhile, on the forums, readers are engaging in a lively debate about free speech, whether underlying prejudices in public employees hinder their ability to do their job and the Keystone Cop-esque nature of some members of the Harrison police force.

Here’s what they have to say:

This is appalling behavior by public law enforcement employees. They should not have the privilege to have these jobs. There should be no tolerance for this heinous behavior.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and freedom of thought? This whole thing is funny. It’s time for (Walsh) to retire anyhow, stay home and play with her grandkids.

For all the people championing the First Amendment: When you wear a uniform, such as a police officer or firefighter, you must balance your freedom of speech with the risk of insubordination. A general code of conduct limits what you can say or write about a superior in a chain of command.

Violence in Mount Vernon and Yonkers is a topic of particular concern among readers, given the ties many have to those communities. So they were interested in a meeting last night of a coalition of community leaders to discuss the violence. Here’s the full story by reporter Ernie Garcia.

After reading this comment by Jim Bostic, chairman of the City of Yonkers Violence and Gang Prevention Coalition: “We’re extending an olive branch this morning to say to you that there are those of us here who love and care for you, but yet we are tired of the violence that’s taking place, and we are saying directly to you that it has to end and we’re willing to help you end it.” one poster wrote:

What? … How about condemning parents who let their kids run free, pay absolutely no attention to them, and now they are out of control. How about telling the police commissioner to get off his butt and start quality-of-life policing in an effort to stop crime before it happens? Get rid of the project-type buildings and build two-family homes, where people can take pride in where they live. These are all steps which took place in East New York, Brooklyn about 10 years ago, and the crime rate there has dropped. Community leaders should not be sitting down with thugs, they should be combating them and taking their streets back.

Here’s what some others have to say:

There is no outrage because the politicos have made it clear that they do not care as well. When people become used to a ‘way of life’ and they do not demand action from their elected officials, this is the end result. Things will only change when people demand action justice from their so-called leaders. It’s always amazing that the crime rate drops 6 months before an election and comes back up 6 months later, especially in high-crime areas.

The Editorial Board of The Journal News and LoHud.com wants to hear from candidates vying in the March 18 elections for village office. A campaign database is being assembled for voters. It will contain information about the races, including what is at stake, who is running, and what the candidates have to say — in their own words — about the issues and their qualifications.
All candidates — even those without opponents — are asked to contact me by e-mail ONLY, to request a candidate questionnaire. Write me as soon as possible at lnikolsk@lohud.com. (Note, there is no “i” at the end of lnikolsk.) Please include a daytime phone number, which will be used for verification.
Via return e-mail, each candidate will receive a user name and password to access and complete the questionnaire, along with instructions on how to submit their response. Ultimately, the information will appear in a Village Elections ’09 guide at LoHud.com.

Thank you. And remember, your constituents, and voters, want to hear your views.

Letters on national politics are a staple on our Editorial Page, and, as those who are unhappy with the administration in power are more likely to write, it should be no surprise that an anti-Republican sentiment dominated for the last eight years. Also no surprise – in the month that Barack Obama has been president, the incoming letters have shifted sharply to the right.

We welcome debate on the issues, as long as it is based on facts. However, we received a couple of problematic letters this week from writers who apparently relied on “talking points” without bothering to look further into the situation.

One letter-writer claimed that Obama’s nomination of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire as Commerce secretary (who later withdrew) was part of an insidious plot to replace a Republican senator with a Democratic one and achieve a filibuster-proof majority: “. . .if Gregg accepts the job, NH Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, would appoint his replacement. Understandably, Lynch would appoint a Democrat.” Not so fast. According to published reports, Gregg had initially agreed to the nomination on condition that a Republican be appointed to his Senate seat. (Gregg’s former chief of staff, Republican Bonnie Newman, was believed to have been Lynch’s pick). A little more research would have prevented the writer from jumping to conclusions.

A second letter-writer opens with “Obama, together with his henchmen in Congress, Pelosi and Reed (sic), are about to propose new insidious legislation . . . What they advocate is that for every hour a patriotic, conservative radio talk show host broadcasts, that station must provide comparable time to a host with left wing credentials.” The writer is apparently referring to the “Fairness Doctrine” that was in effect for several decades until being abolished by the FCC in 1987. The doctrine required broadcasters to provide contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues (not necessarily “equal time”). While some Democrats (including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) and progressive radio hosts have recently spoken out in favor of restoring the Fairness Doctrine, Obama has stated publicly that he opposes its revival, most recently in a report on FOXNews.com on Wednesday. (It should also be noted that no imminent legislation regarding restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, or any “new” proposed regulations, has been announced.) Since the Fairness Doctrine has been brought up for public discussion, the writer certainly has the right to express his opinion on it, but his factual errors will be corrected before publication.

Such misstatement of fact isn’t unique to conservatives – we’ve also received wild overestimations of the number of dead in Iraq from anti-war writers, for example. So we ask letter-writers of all political stripes to please double-check your facts with a reliable news source or two – don’t rely solely on blogs, talk radio, your next-door neighbor or e-mail campaigns for your information.

Now that the $787 billion stimulus package has been signed by President Barack Obama, readers are waiting to see how much good—or harm—it may do. Most are saying that they hope it works to get the economy rolling again, but others are fearful that it will only lead to more national debt and bigger problems in the future.

In contrast, the $75 billion foreclosure plan is sparking more anger from people who say they don’t want to bail out people who used creative financing options to buy beyond their means, didn’t read or understand the terms of the financing or treated their house as a piggy bank. Others recognize the need to help out homeowners who fell into foreclosure trouble because of deceptive or fraudulent financing practices or because they lost a job or had a medical emergency.

Here are just a few comments:

This plan is an insult to every person who lives within their means.

If the government does nothing we all will pay twice as much later. Something needs to be done to stop the downward spiral in home prices, get the banks to lend more (so they don’t become nationalized), help curb the massive job lost, etc. All of which would get worse without action.

Give it a chance? Yeah, right. I pay my mortgage and taxes—what do I get? I get to pay MORE taxes!

Two stories involving the care and neglect of children have readers outraged over their apparent abuse and questioning how these situations could have deteriorated so badly.

The first story, by Shawn Cohen and Marcela Rojas, concerns a 7-month-old Ossining girl who is in critical condition at Westchester Medical Center after her father allegedly beat her on two occassions. Child Protection Services is blocking the parents from having any contact with the infant, who has had seizures after being hospitalized for broken bones and other injuries. The father is being held pending an investigation by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement into his immigration status.

Here is what readers had to say about this case:

Lock them both up and sever their parental rights to this child so someone who desparately wants a child can raise her (if she survives) with the love and the extra care she needs. Unfortunately,the focus of Social Services in these situations is ‘reunite’ the family. Anyone who abuses a child, let alone a newborn, or stands by for a week while it goes on, does not deserve a second chance.

Anyone who does this to a child should not receive bail. Period. I’m sure I speak for the masses when I say I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired of children being beaten to death (near death) and the parents able to walk out of their cell and into the arms of their family and friends while they await trials and sentencing!

The second article, by Will David, is about a Yonkers couple charged with child endangerment after city police were called to their apartment twice by the woman’s 7-year-old daughter. Police found two boys, ages 2 and 4, in a bathtub with the water running, the 7-year-old standing on a ledge and the couple locked in a bedroom. The children are now with their maternal grandmother.

Here’s what readers had to say about this situation:

Why do people continue to have children they don’t want to care for? Thank God the little girl did call 911. … Let’s hope grandma takes better care of the children than her daughter did.

These kids are lucky they are now living with grandma. These two idiots should, of course, be locked up immediately, and they should be prevented from having any more kids. They can’t take care of what they have, forget more. What a disgrace.

Forum buzz on the Clarkstown School District’s $187 million school bond vote March 10 is mostly concentrated on the whopping price tag in this floundering economy. The district’s proposal is the largest school bond vote on record in the state, according to reporter Hema Easley’s Monday story. Most posters think the scope of the work proposed is far too wide and are finding many examples of projects they think are excessive.

In addition, many voters say they aren’t buying comments from school officials that, if the bond does pass, they could scale back the work if the economy worsens. Several are saying they don’t trust the district leaders to make those decisions on their behalf.

Check out what taxpayers have to say about the bond and then tell us what you think.

To impose this burden, at this time, is sheer arrogance. … Taxpayers have been beaten to death with year over year increases with little regard to the impact those lush increases have had on family budgets. Now, the cry is loud and clear: NO MORE. … Vote this bond down and let them go back to the drawing board and present a new, slimmed and reasonable proposal. Don’t trust them to do what’s right; there is little evidence to support such a change of heart.

Do we trust the school board to make that decision for us? I certainly don’t! Vote no! Let them come back with a more reasonable solution to renovating these buildings.

There is NO trusting the Clarkstown district to decide how bad the economy has to be hitting us before it decides how much to spend and expect us, the taxpayers, to pay for it. This economy was already tanking before they put this gigantic bond together. They failed then to consider the impact of this economic crisis on the taxpayers before putting this bond together. Instead they went hog-wild, adding up to to the largest school bond ever in New York.

Poor timing, too much pork. For the first time I will vote no. Let’s get North fixed and worry about the rest on an annual basis from this point on. Show us the alternative plan.

Just playing catch up on the news last week that Assemblyman Greg Ball, R-Patterson, has apparently tired of hitting his head against the wall in Albany and now wants to do the same in Washington. Just three months removed from winning a second term in the Assembly, Ball announced he was forming an  exploratory committee to run for Rep. John Hall’s 19th Congressional District seat. Doing so allows Ball to raise money for polling, buy trial balloons, read tea leaves and otherwise gauge his chances. Ball told staff reporter Mike Risinit that, at the end of the exploration, he anticipated he “would be running for Congress” in 2010.

John Hall might think differently, but Congress would appear to be a better fit for Ball, who very often has been like a square peg trying to fit into the round hole that is the Democratic-controlled Assembly. He ran for state office largely on an anti-illegal immigration platform, which is all well and good, except that state legislatures have nothing to do with setting immigration policy or enforcing immigration law.  No matter what anyone might have heard in one of those ubiquitous “robo calls” so popular with the candidates, the Supreme Court has said that Congress and the president have plenary power over immigration policy.

That means immigration is a federal job, not the job of free-lancing local officials. Even if there were no plenary power doctrine, Ball would still have to contend with the (Assembly Speaker) Sheldon Silver doctrine, which is the law of the Assembly. It holds that two-term, minority-party lawmakers like Ball, who publicly took aim at the Assembly speaker & Co. as soon as Ball got off of the bus in Albany, shall not receive so much as the time of day in the state Capitol, let alone opportunity to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

This is what Jay Gallagher of our Albany Bureau wrote in February 2007, when Ball, just weeks into the new job, took his colleagues to task for picking Tom DiNapoli, then a Democratic assemblyman from Long Island, as the new state comptroller, rejecting the recommendations of an independent panel:

“This is the most dysfunctional Legislature,” Ball continued, as the hisses and catcalls started and he raised his volume, “in the United States of America.” That triggered full-throated boos and repeated shouts of “Sit down” and “Resign,” momentarily silencing Ball.

“Mr. Speaker, will you please take control?” Ball said to the man with the gavel, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan. Silver offered no help.

Ball labored on: “It may not make any friends. But that’s how I feel and that’s how the public feels.” He cast his vote for New York Finance Commissioner Martha Stark, one of the three nominated finalists.

Later, Ball said he would continue to take on his colleagues. “I didn’t come up here to get a lot of applause,” he said. “The more boos I get, the happier I will become. I have just begun.

“We’re the most dysfunctional Legislature in the country and today we proved it,” he said. “The power of the Legislature won over the power of the people.”

So at least Congress plays the same game that Ball does. Timing, however, is everything. Immigration reform was a big deal in 2006, when Ball decided to run for state office. Of course, that’s also when voters booted the Republicans out of  the majority in the House, putting the Democrats in charge for the first time since 1994. Maybe Ball will find Speaker Nancy Pelosi more agreeable than Speaker Silver. Or not. In the last election, immigration was a non-issue in most opinion polls; it isn’t likely to register very high in 2010 either, not with the economy still on life support.

Where the economy will leave Hall, Ball or, quite frankly, any of us two years from now is anyone’s guess. Perhaps we’ll all have reinvented ourselves by then. Or not.

Should sex offenders be allowed to take plea deals, with the possibility of reduced sentences, to spare their victims having to testify at a trial? That’s just one of the issues being debated on the forums after a Sunday story by Marcela Rojas on an accused sex offender in Brewster. Shawn Waters pleaded guilty to 2 misdemeanors, attempted criminal sex act and endangering the welfare of a child, and is awaiting sentencing in Putnam County jail on $30,000 bail. Waters was charged with molesting an 11-year-old boy in June.

People also are talking about Waters, who was enrolled in special education classes in school and participated in programs for developmentally disabled adults, and their experiences with him in his Brewster neighborhood.

Read the story and then leave your thoughts. Here are some comments already posted:

Sufficient evidence! Then why let him plea it out to a much lesser offense?

I accept the court’s ruling, and acknowledge that I know very little about this case. But I have spoken to neighbors who have known him for many years, and they told me they have always found him to be a fine person. Despite all the venomous ink engendered by the execrable political exploitation of this unhappy situation, my neighbors continue to say they always liked him.

Part of the reason to let him take a plea is to spare the victim of a trial – if you have ever seen what slimy defense attorneys do to victims, you would know why a plea is necessary. Imagine if that was you at 11 — or your 11-year-old son — and you had to get up in front of an entire courtroom and talk about how you were molested by someone – then have a defense attorney rip you apart in front of all those people. … Who wants a child to go through that? sexual abuse is a horrible crime with lasting damage — putting a child on the stand only compounds the fear, of seeing your abuser again, having to tell your story again and having someone call you a liar.