To the Editor:
I’m surprised and concerned about PEF choosing the nation’s capital for the site of the 32nd Annual Convention.
After reading about PEF trying to save jobs and making suggestions to the state to save money, why would PEF choose Washington, DC, where the cost of living is much higher than in most of the previous convention locations?
Why doesn’t PEF provide leadership by choosing a site in New York state, which would help boost the economy of that location?
BILL GIBBONS
Clifton Park
Editor’s Note: Convention sites must be booked at least three to five years in advance. The Washington site was chosen by the PEF Executive Board well before the current economic downturn began in 2008. PEF will take advantage of the time in Washington to have maximum interaction between the delegates and federal legislators and leaders on issues such as funding for New York and state programs.
Spend PEF’s $$ in New York
To the Editor:
I could not help but notice the irony in your February issue. While the cover story concerns the negative costs of outsourcing, at the back of the issue is information concerning PEF’s annual convention being held in Washington, DC.
One could consider this considerable outsourcing. It may be best to keep such functions within the state.
As the saying goes, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
THOMAS MALTESE
Syracuse
Hydrofracking story on target
To the Editor:
Living, as I do, on the edge of Marcellus Shale, I’ve seen loads of misinformation about hydrofracking (to harvest natural gas trapped under shale formations) coming from the drilling industry. It was wonderful to read in the
February Communicator that fellow PEF members have voiced their concern over the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s woefully inadequate Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for hydrofracking.
I just hope PEF adds its stronger voice to the grassroots effort to stop this train wreck.
One has only to look across the border at Pennsylvania where water wells have been poisoned, streams polluted, and homes ruined by massive truck traffic, 24/7 drill-rig operations and fracking-fluid spills to know this industry needs to be regulated and monitored very, very closely.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency was removed from an oversight role when this industry was exempted from all federal clean-air and clean-water regulations by the “Halliburton” amendment under the Bush administration, leaving states responsible for regulation and monitoring.
We need to require this industry to play by the rules of environmental responsibility and we need to let the governor know this industry must be monitored with more than the few DEC staff available.
SUZANNE ETHERINGTON
Cortland
The Communicator Letters policy
We welcome letters to the editor about union issues and events relevant to PEF's diverse membership. All letters are subject to editing for space, fairness and good taste.
Please keep them brief (up to one page, double-spaced or a maximum of 250 words), and please include your name and phone number for verification.
Send letters to thecommunicator@pef.org:
The Communicator
Public Employees Federation
P.O. Box 12414
Albany, N.Y. 12212-2414
Email to Sherry Halbrook, Editor or Darcy Wells, Editor-In Chief
