If Feiner did not believe the information was confidential, why then did he further admit at Friday's meeting to sending the town attorney's e-mail first to his personal political e-mail address, Feiner98@aol.com, before sending it to Rosenberg (and perhaps others)? And why did the Journal News not report this very telling piece of information? If the information was not confidential, as Feiner says, why did Feiner not just forward it directly from his town e-mail address? Is it because then his e-mail communication to Rosenberg would then be subject to FOIL? If so, what was in that e-mail communication to Rosenberg that Feiner did not want the public to see? Was he in fact abusing his office by leaking confidential information to Rosenberg for the purpose of undermining the efforts on the part of town staff to negotiate a good short-term lease for temporary library space? The act of sending the e-mail to Feiner98@aol.com shows that Feiner knew exactly what he was doing in leaking the information to Rosenberg -- and because he used his personal political account to do so -- that's off-limits to Chief Kapica, as well it should be. But because Feiner used this deceitful tactic, we'll never know to whomever else he may have sent the information or what he may have told Rosenberg or others to do with it.

Against that background, I do not understand why did the Journal News led off its story with Feiner supposedly not realizing the consequences of his having pressed the "send" button on his blackberry. That conveys the impression that what Feiner did was inadvertent. But anyone who was at Friday's meeting, or who may have watched it on the Internet -- knows it was anything but that. Thus, the one thing that Feiner made clear on Friday that he did NOT do was "send" the message to Rosenberg from his blackberry. He said he ran into Rosenberg at the supermarket and "showed" the Lewis e-mail message to him. He did not "send" the message to him at that time. He said he went back home, re-sent the e-mail message to his political account, and then re-sent the message to Rosenberg from there. Perhaps this was too much detail for a daily to report -- but being a daily doesn't excuse using a lead which is both factually wrong and conveys to readers a false and misleading impression.

I hope the Town Board releases a report on what actually happened here so that Greenburgh residents can get a complete picture and form their own conclusions.

Robert B. Bernstein

From: Hal Samis
To: Grassroots for Greenburgh
Subject: 5/3 Greenburgh Investigation Article
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006

Ed: attorney-client privilege is the protection the client gets while speaking with his attorney. What does this have to do with this situation?  Feiner admitted it as early as the Wednesday town board meeting saying "now you don't have to bother the police" -- and we discussed this friday/saturday.  If the purchase option were a bogus transaction, the cost of obtaining this option if the "option" was not exercised could be charge to the A budget.  If the real purpose of the option was merely a vehicle to reduce the rent for the Library by the option fee being divided over the rental period, then the A budget and, hence the Villages would be contributing toward the Greenburgh Library rent, something they would not want to do.  Again, we discussed this last weekend.

Whether we like or agree with Mr. Rosenberg is not the issue, he is still the chairman of the standing SCOBA committee and asking his opinion on this allocation is not so absurd.

What is absurd is the Democratic Town Council members, Bass, Barnes, Juettner and Sheehan adopting the attitudes of Mr. Ashworth.  The meeting on Friday, with stenographer, was public noticed as inviting public comment.  No such provision was allowed despite the presence at the meeting of the town board parliamentarian and a town clerk -- neither were consulted despite my protest.

Hal Samis

Your story about the investigation of an e-mail in Greenburgh is somewhat misleading. Yes, Mr. Feiner admitted he sent the e-mail. This, however, after continuously denying it. Even his admission was tainted. In his first version he claimed he "ran into Mr. Rosenberg in the supermarket...." His second version, presented on the same day, Friday, most somewhat more forthright- if admitting to two lies can be considered forthright- when he admitted sending the information on his blackberry. And, if as your article states, "he had no idea the information was confidential," why did he have to engage in a compound lie?

Mr. Feiner has been in public office for approximately two decades, and is an attorney b education. Shouldn't it be about time he learned what privileged attorney-client communications are? And, for that matter, what legal and ethical behavior is?

As to Mr. Rosenberg, how could he "ask to see a document" he allegedly had no knowledge of? And, his "concern about the effect that the "land deal" could have on Village budgets, is a non-sequitur. If the land was for a temporary use for he library, it would be of no concern to the villages, because that funding comes from the recently passed Library referendum, paid for exclusively by taxpayers in the unincorporated sections of Greenburgh. If it is for a future police department H.Q., ditto- B budget. If it is for a new courthouse, it is in the Town wide A budget, but there is no choice in the matter, and Mr. Rosenberg's input is superfluous.

Notwithstanding, "Frank' was the worst-kept secret in town," does not give Mr. Feiner license to violate his fiduciary, moral and legal responsibilities. Because "everyone" is driving 65 MPH in a 50 MPH zone, does not give you the right to do so.

Finally, there ARE secrets in Greenburgh, bur I can't reveal them to you, else they will no longer be secrets.

Ed Krauss, Scarsdale

P.S. One other thing. In Mr. Feiner's mind, now that he has admitted his "indiscretion" he is absolved. And his comment that he'll "never do it again," is a "bet" no self-respecting bookie will take.