Letters to the editor - March 14 2013

Dear Gov. Malloy: Help save our Sharon Hospital

Now is the time to come to the aid of Sharon Hospital. I’ve been associated with the hospital as a general surgeon for almost 47 years. I’ve never seen the hospital so financially challenged. In 2003, with the help of then-state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Sharon Hospital became the first for-profit hospital in the state of Connecticut. As for-profit, the hospital pays more in taxes relative to its size than all of the remaining 28 nonprofit acute care hospitals in the state. Currently this amounts to an annual tax of $2,247,360. 

Governor, your two-year budget proposes to cut funding for all of the Connecticut hospitals by an amount of $550 million over two years. These funds are used for reimbursements for uncompensated care (people with no health insurance). The cost of this action in Sharon Hospital’s case will be $2,527,725 for 2014 and 2015.

This is not a level playing field! UConn’s John Dempsey Hospital in its preferred status as Connecticut’s only government-run hospital has proposed cuts of only $1 million in reimbursements, the smallest reduction among all of Connecticut hospitals. On top of this, your administration is giving John Dempsey a $1 billion grant for expansion and upgrades. And of course, if John Dempsey suffers any deficits, the state government (our tax dollars) will cover any losses on a yearly basis. Where is the fairness in all of this for little old Sharon Hospital?

For 103 years, Sharon Hospital has served a needy community in northwestern Connecticut. The hospital is almost 45 minutes from any other hospital north, south, east or west. Gov. Malloy, your proposed action is threatening Sharon Hospital’s existence and certainly our level of patient care.

This letter was sent to Gov. Malloy, and cc’ed to Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen. Chris Murphy.

W. Peter Reyelt Jr., MD

Lakeville

Do you know what’s in that next bite?

Will Connecticut make history with Vermont and Maine, and be among the first in the nation to mandate labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods (GEF)? Notably, there is a public hearing in Hartford on March 15 on Bill No. 6519 requiring labeling of GEF.

What is genetically engineered food all about? It generally involves combining genetic material from two or more different species employing viruses, bacteria and antibiotics during the gene insertion process. It is quite different from traditional plant breeding which typically results from selective crossbreeding of hardier or more desirable individuals within its own species. The end result has also been called a GMO — Genetically Modified Organism. 

In fact, internal FDA scientist memos at the time genetically engineered foods were declared safe showed consensus that GMO crops can have unpredictable, hard to detect side effects. While the scientists recommended comprehensive safety studies, they were overruled by FDA food safety czar, a new position created in 1991 for former Monsanto VP Michael Taylor.

Chemical company and other promoters of GEF have made robust promises of drought tolerant crops thriving in dry environments, vitamin and healthy oil fortified grains, and tastier, more highly productive crops to feed the world. In fact, very few of the promised GE seed traits have even panned out. With the exception of two traits — herbicide tolerance and/or pesticide protection — typified by most RoundUp Ready corn, soy and cottonseed planted here, promises to farmers are underperforming with unintended consequences from the GE monoculture crops. 

Remember the old saying, “Don’t fool around with Mother Nature?” Nature is defying Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide built into its near monopolized seedstock. Farmers are increasingly finding they have to use more weedkiller as weeds become herbicide resistant. RoundUp doesn’t degrade as promised either. What does that mean for your dinner table? Well, if you don’t buy organically farmed crops or carefully grow your own, you’ll likely have more pesticides on your dinner plate than your parents did, and getting worse. 

False promises, escalating farmer and food costs, increased health risks from more pesticides, and worse, from the unstable GE process — viruses used as gene trait insertion catalysts, antibiotics as genetic markers, and new GE bacteria built into the seed, the effects of which have been demonstrated by independent scientists and the chemical companies’ own studies, to have created new allergenic entities and other health compromising impacts (reproductive, cancer, autoimmune disorders). FDA’s standard for GE crops is that the manufacturer simply states it is safe, without necessarily conducting rigorous, peer reviewed safety studies. With FDA an enthusiastic cheerleader for biotech foods, what kind of Pandora’s box of health, environmental and economic maladies has been opened up?

I’m joining others in Hartford for the GE Food legislative hearing Friday. If you want to know more, go to www.GMOFreeCT.org. Let your state legislators know that you indeed have a right to know what’s in your food, enough of hidden ingredients — Just Label It!

Leila Baroody

Lakeville

What I might tell a pollster

This is an imaginary poll, taken by an imaginary polling organization, and these are what my responses would be to that imaginary poll, tongue planted firmly in cheek:

Premise: It has come to our attention that you in Salisbury are afflicted with an unusual political controversy, especially so, given the quiet nature of your area. 

Question: Since the election of Selectman Mark Lauretano in Salisbury, has the tone of the selectmen’s meeting changed? 

Answer: Completely. In fact, I wonder whether we live in Lakeville/Salisbury, or in Washington, D.C. 

Question: He claims he is not divisive, it is those other people. True? 

Answer: Just go to a selectmen’s meeting, or watch it on television!

Question: Apart from that, do you think he is doing a good job? 

Answer: His wife thinks so. 

Question: What do you think? 

Answer: It seems to me he spends an inordinate amount of time in assiduous pursuit of nonissues and writing interminable and tiresome letters to The Lakeville Journal.

Question: What are the non-issues? 

Answer: Let me give you a couple of examples: One was a two-step proposal to make selectmen’s meetings more meaningful, even heart-warming. 1. The recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in English and Spanish, and 2. All three selectmen to sing the Star-Spangled Banner in three-part harmony (perhaps harmony is not the right word, here). Fortunately, that did not fly. 

Question: What is the other example? 

Answer: Ah, this one has a somewhat longer shelf life. We all woke up one morning to find out that Lakeville/Salisbury is a hotbed of corruption and malfeasance, especially town government, all departments of which are rife with wickedness and immorality. Solution? A Code of Ethics, of course, with a special commission to enforce compliance. The discussion of that goes on — and on, and on. 

Question: But aren’t there some problems here, such as legal maneuvering, prosecution and eventual possible incarceration, all of which cost money? Who pays for this? 

Answer: Guess who! However, respecting possible punishment, a local law enforcement official who prefers to remain anonymous has come up with a perfect solution, one which will save the taxpayers a bundle. The miscreant will be placed under house arrest and condemned to read every single letter Mr. Lauretano ever wrote to The Lakeville Journal.

Question: Isn’t this a Republican Party problem?

Answer: Yes and no. It has become a town problem; yet, it is up to sane and sensible mainstream Republicans to take the lead in finding a solution. 

Question: Is there a time frame here? 

Answer: November, baby — November. You know, back in the day when the Dodgers were still in Brooklyn, we had two expressions: “Wait until next year,” and “Throw the bum out!” Fortunately, here in Lakeville/ Salisbury, we won’t have to wait until next year. 

Dick Boyle 

Salisbury

Criminal misuse of firearms is a serious issue

The emotional appeal by Dale Jones (Lakeville Journal, March 7) is another failed attempt at coming to a solution for criminal misuse of firearms. Interestingly, Mr. Jones fails to note the bait and switch offered by the politicians; mental health issues were to be an integral part of the review of laws. However, it is same old, same old; guns first, last, always. 

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the premier organization for teaching firearm safety. It has been that way since 1871. How the firearms were obtained by the criminal is known only to Connecticut State Police. It is not public knowledge if the firearms were secured. However, consider that some of the laws broken were: murder of the lawful owner, theft of firearms and ammunition, theft of an automobile. All before he left the driveway.

Chicago has no gun shops; its laws do not allow them. The item referred to occurred in Augusta, Ga., from October 2009 to August 2012. The penalties faced by the felon were 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each firearm sold. One could surmise that at least one firearm was sold in that time. His wife, the legal Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder faced the same penalties for violating the terms of the FFL. The penalty for the husband is recommended at five years; his wife is facing three years probation. That, my friends, is the problem; criminal misuse of firearms is not treated as a serious issue.

To address the most glaring mistake in Mr. Jones’ letter, the rifle used in Newtown is a semiautomatic rifle, with the standard issue 30-round magazine. The politicians in Hartford and Washington, as well as Mr. Jones, know that the proposed bans affect semiautomatic rifles that are no different than the sainted hunting rifle. Mr. Jones cites the law which regulates true assault rifles, the National Firearms Act, 1934. It did not outlaw private ownership, but it did place severe requirements on their purchase and storage. If we are to ever find that better way, we must start with honesty in the discussion.

Paul Bartomioli

Falls Village

Revisions can open loopholes

On Feb. 6, Messrs. Vail and Morrill sent a letter to the Salisbury Board of Selectmen (BOS) declaring that the code of ethics (COE) development process which I had undertaken in early 2012 had been too lengthy and time consuming. They submitted their own speedy solution in the form of a revision of the original 2005 Salisbury Code of Ethics. Their last sentence of the letter reads: “The time has come to resolve this issue.” 

Selectmen Rand and Dresser appear to disagree, considering their negative reaction to bringing the current draft COE and Commission to a town meeting vote. Now the urgency has shifted to stalling for time until Mr. Vail returns from out-of-town to help orchestrate confusion of the two COEs in the public square.

The Vail/Morrill revision of the 2005 Salisbury Code of Ethics is a separate proposal and has no bearing on the draft COE and Commission that are now ready for the townspeople to vote on. Let the chips fall where they may, Salisbury can vote separately on the two parts, adopting the COE and the Commission, or vote them both down. Alternatively, the town may vote to adopt the draft COE but reject the Commission. The town needs to make a decision on whether or not it wants the COE alone, without the proposed Commission. It makes no sense to confuse the public with a third question to vote on an alternative COE at the same time.

There is nothing to stop the town from choosing to vote on the Vail/Morrill revised COE at a later date when they are finished fine-tuning their revisions, and thereby replace whatever the town may or may not have already adopted. Our citizens need to take note, however, of several problems with the Vail/Morrill COE.

First, most of the proposed revisions open loopholes for corruption that had been closed in the original 2005 COE passed under the administration of Val Bernardoni. Those loopholes are detailed in my commentary dated Feb. 14, 2013, at www.salisburyrtc.org . Next, the public needs to consider whether or not they like the prospect of having no public input on the content and little opportunity to find out what is actually in it — you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. 

Then there is the question of whether or not it is legal for the BOS to vote the Vail/Morrill COE into effect instead of the townspeople at public meeting. Since it does include sanctions to be used against appointed municipal officers (officials?) and employee(s), including censure, fines, suspension or termination from employment, state law seems to require it be voted as an ordinance at town meeting. The handling of investigations is assigned to an unspecified Town Official and non-existent administrative processes. Slip-shod at best, useless at worst.

Finally, there is the issue that the BOS and all elected officials are exempt from any investigation of alleged wrongdoing, or sanctions. A blatant example of elitist political cronyism, up-front-and-in-your-face.

Mark A. Lauretano

Selectman

Salisbury