In Other News: Local reps score high marks on environmental report card

02/19/2011 8:00 AM |

Eastern Long Island’s U.S. representatives lead the way in environmental issues, according to a report released this week by the national League of Conservation Voters.

Congressman Tim Bishop, Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Kristen Gillibrand all scored a perfect 100 on the report card. The national average was 48 for the Senate and 57 for the House.

The 2010 Scorecard includes 6 Senate and 9 House votes on issues ranging from clean energy to public health protections to wildlife conservation, accordng to the LCV.

The League of Conservation Voters is a non-partisan political action group that works to make environmental protection a top priority for legislators, according to its website.

Click here to read more



30 Comment

  • Southold is blessed with a humane no-kill shelter that houses rather than incarcerates animals.

    Thank you to all the loving people who contribute to the North Fork Animal Welfare League. And, thank you to all the loving people who work for Southold Town Animal Shelter, and thank you to all the loving people who volunteer to help operate the Shelter, and thank you to all the loving people who direct the North Fork Animal Welfare League and thank you to all the past and present incarnations of the Southold Town Board which has provided Southold Town with an intelligent and humane companion animal sheltering program.

    It took less than 2 minutes to google the meaning of a “no kill shelter”,
    ~ No kill animal shelters reject euthanasia as a means of population control. Animals are only euthanized if they are too sick to be treated or too aggressive to be suitable for adoption.

    Isn’t it obvious who is holding an interminable rotten stinking grudge, harboring bitter resentment and is motivated by deep-seated ill will? Isn’t it obvious that Southold Town Board should stop working with Geiss?

  • B: What makes you think she is a witch?
    Villager: Well, She turned me into a newt!!


    Bedevere: a newt?

    (long pause)

    Villager: I got better…
    Villagers: BURN HER anyway! BURN! BURN! BURN HER!
    B: Quiet, quiet, quiet, QUIET! There are ways of *telling* whether she is a witch!
    Villagers: Are there? What? Tell us, then! Tell us!
    B: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
    V: BUUUURN!!!!! BUUUUUURRRRNN!!!!! You BURN them!!!! BURN!!
    B: And what do you burn apart from witches?
    Villager: More Witches!
    Other Villager: Wood.
    B: So. Why do witches burn?

    (long silence)
    (shuffling of feet by the villagers)

    Villager: (tentatively) Because they’re made of…..wood?
    B: Goooood!
    Other Villagers: oh yeah… oh….
    B: So. How do we tell whether she is made of wood?
    One Villager: Build a bridge out of ‘er!
    B: Aah. But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
    Villagers: oh yeah. oh. umm…
    B: Does wood sink in water?
    One Villager: No! No, no, it floats!
    Other Villager: Throw her into the pond!
    Villagers: yaaaaaa!

    (when order is restored)

    B: What also floats in water?
    Villager: Bread!
    Another Villager: Apples!
    Another Villager: Uh…very small rocks!
    Another Villager: Cider!
    Another Villager: Uh…great gravy!
    Another Villager: Cherries!
    Another Villager: Mud!
    Another Villager: Churches! Churches!
    Another Villager: Lead! Lead!
    King Arthur: A Duck!
    Villagers: (in amazement) ooooooh!
    B: exACTly!
    B: (to a villager) So, *logically*…
    Villager: (very slowly, with pauses between each word) If…she…weighs the same as a duck……she’s made of wood.

    B: and therefore…


    Villager: A Witch!
    All Villagers: A WITCH!

  • I do want to thank Carol for apprising all of us in the community, that, in fact, the Town Board had received a copy of her letter that was read at the Board meeting Gunther describes. I was horrified as I watched that scene. The Board hotly denied they knew of that letter. Thank you, Carol, for the truth. Also, one of the Board members cavaliarly denied ever giving Carol the go ahead to seek other bids, when, again, Carol informed us she was told to go ahead in an e-mail from that very person denying it to the public. Now, I wonder what other lies this Board, both dems and reps, are shoving on us. I am so disappointed in the whole Board. And I apologize to you, Carol, for being the fall gal for them as they stated they didn’t care for anything you said. Thanks for your honesty, as it is so refreshing in light of the very ridiculous state of affairs I have witnessed at these meetings as I watched it several times .They should really check it themselves to notice their discrepancies. The dishonesty, however, is lethal to this community. Where do we ever go from here?

  • -a letter from Scott Russell to Gunther Geiss, verbatim, after the last Town Board meeting, in a forum now buried somewhere in Northfork Patch.-

    “The axe grinding was meant to cut both ways. I have no interest in what they, as an organization, think of you nor, what you think of them. The focus of this board is to make sure that we get a well run facility and transparent reporting of the activities there. I find your missive here to be no more important to that issue then the misguided and misinformed people who attended the meeting that night. We get accused of being in some sort of conspiricy with you and then you accuse me and others of buckling under to them. Mrs. Geiss even went so far as to suggest that I eliminated the leagues reporting requirements which is factually incorrect. The reality of the situation is that the Board and I have no interest in what you have to say about them or what they have to say about you. Those are simply not pertinent to our goal of issuing a transparent contract to a contractor who operates a fiscally sound operation. The taxpayers deserve leadership that stays focused on those goals and does not get caught up in side distractions and drama. Perhaps this is not the forum but, it is the one you seemed to choose. Regards, Scott”

  • For the Town Board to pretend they don’t know the Geisses is political spin.

    As a member of the Southold Town Board Police Advisory Committee, at a Town Board meeting on 12/18/2007 Gunther Geiss told the Southold Town Board: “Now normally we don’t hold meetings with the public, although the meeting is open to the public but nonetheless, the members agreed to hear their issues and to discuss them with them as neighbors. … I am asking for an executive session because I believe that these individuals with extensive enforcement background would feel more comfortable talking in a closed door setting about their experiences.”

    Who knows what Geiss is telling Town Board Members in private?

    The Town Board of the Town of Southold in a Resolution adopted by Louisa P. Evans (Initiator), Thomas H. Wickham (Seconder), Supervisor Scott Russell, Albert Krupski Jr., William Ruland and Vincent Orlando reappointed Gunther Geiss to the Police Advisory Committee on 6/2/2009 for a two and three quarter year term. That is all six members of the current Town Board voting for Geiss as an advisor to the Town Board.

    Recently in Town Hall I asked Carole Geiss how she would like to see the current Animal Shelter contract negotiations / RFP resolved. She said “I want the Town to take over operation of the Animal Shelter.”

  • I have spoken with Mrs. Geiss and never once did she say that she wanted the Town to take over the operation of the Animal Shelter!

  • tons and tons….it’s time to clean house in the next election……come out and vote!

  • Can’t wait until the next election……hopefully, we can clean up the board!

  • oh, Regards

  • Yes, I for one will vote to remove Albert Krupski next time, because he is in favor of the RFP as well.

    Remember, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.

  • Yes, I for one will vote to remove Albert Krupski next time, because he is in favor of the RFP as well.

    Remember, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.

  • Benja,
    Let us take your statements in reverse. Carole did not tell you she wanted the Town to run the shelter. That is what you wanted to hear, a poor attempt to “lead the witness.”
    She said, “If no responsive bids are received the Town will have to run the shelter.” We have no such preference.
    Like you, we want an open and informed environment. Why did NFAWL stop census reporting? It was their past practice for a decade or more. As an attorney you know that is crucial in contracts. If you done it before you gotta do it now or say you ain’t gonna do it in the next contract.
    You also suffer from selective reading. The Police Advisory Committee is not a civilian complaint review board. It works with the Town to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Police Department. You refer to the Anti-Bias Task Force demand to talk with us about the ICE raid in Greenport some years ago. The PAC made clear that we had no authority in that matter, but as good neighbors we would discuss it with the ABTF and educate them on enforcement practices. The PAC suggested an executive session with the Town Board because some questions could not be answered in public without violating laws or the safety of officers.

    Your ability to see conspiracies in everyday life may be unique. Have you tried writing for TV series, soaps or police dramas?

  • Morgan,
    Based on the majority of posts here and elsewhere, yours is unique in offering support. We thank you.
    To be absolutely fair and clear, there were two communications–one saying “here is a bidding opportunity,” the other, to the Town Board et al on Feb. 7, saying “here are those I contacted.”

    Why do so many express anger and fear about a good American business practice–competitive bidding–that is meant to benefit the entire community?

    We, in Carole’s letter and my Op-Ed, wanted the truth told and wanted to urge all of us to stop vilifying others, stop finding fault, and begin the process of problem solving. We all make mistakes now and again. Spring and the time of renewal are coming.

    Carole and Gunther

  • Gunther, You were not there. I did not ask a leading question.

    I first asked Carole what she thought would happen. She answered that she did not know. I then asked Carole what she would want to happen and Carole answered “I want the Town to take over operation of the Animal Shelter.”

  • Let us straighten out some distorted history here. ACT 1: Carole Geiss wished to run for office at the NFAWL but missed the deadline for submission and did not have the required number of signatures. Nonetheless, she sued and this was settled out of court to minimize attorney’s fees. ACT 2: Next election, Carole Geiss this time filed a proper submission and was placed on the ballot. She received less than 15% of the votes cast and was not elected. ACT 3: Next election, Carole Geiss ran again and received even less votes. During these episodes she constantly contacted the New York Attorney General with legal claims that were found totally without merit and never pursued by the state. EPILOGUE: The NFAWL and its membership elected as a total body to change the election process most likely to avoid Carole Geiss and the endless spinning of her personal wheels. MORAL: What does Carole Geiss not understand by the word “No”? Clearly Carole Geiss may be the reincarnation of Harold Stassen, the perennial unsuccessful GOP presidential candidate.

  • Dear Guest,
    What is your feeling on blankets?
    You are okay with a 14 year old dog with arthritic hips, whose elderly owner just died alone without a family, sleeping on a cold, concrete floor? Toughen her up in the unlikely event someone wants to adopt her as a watchdog in a junkyard or empty warehouse? Maybe she’ll get one of Dr. Geiss’ “canvas slings on plastic frames” that can be hosed down? Unlikely, since they are not free like donated blankets, nor could she just hop up on one anyway, like a younger, healthier dog.
    Puppies really don’t need blankets either. Why should those animals be treated any better than crying babies in some Dickensian orphanage right? Any affection or special care would just spoil em.
    And most importantly, there will be no lint.

  • Benja,
    I am surprised that you hold NO-KILL to your heart. Isn’t it really a Madison Avenue phrase that hides the reality. The proper term is limited euthanasia.
    The Southold Town Animal Shelter is, by state regulation, an open-admission shelter. All dogs running-at-large or surrendered by Southold residents must be accepted. The rest of the article you quoted reports that an “open-admission” shelter can’t be NO-KILL in any reality since it can’t choose which animal gets admitted.
    Let’s agree to cut the Mad-Ave nonsense and use the term limited euthanasia.
    NFAWL also euthanizes cats–see the census reports–hopefully because it is really necessary for humane reasons, not overpopulation.
    NO-KILL exists only in a non-existent ideal world–in a dream. Perhaps it is the same recurring dream in which you “learn” why Carole and I do what we do.

  • Mr. Edelson,

    “See–now there they go again!” “Yep, just mis-dis-remembering the facts.”

    We made one attempt to run for the Board of Directors of NFAWL in 2002. The Supreme Court suit settlement with NFAWL postponed the Annual Meeting into 2003. Ms. Pamela Mann, NFAWL’s attorney, and Susan Rice, specialist in corporate proxy contests, presided. They suspended normal rules by voting the proxies that were signed by members without knowledge that such action would be taken. They rammed thru the election without permitting our slate, or our attorney, to observe the ballot counting, or to test the membership roll used to reject proxy ballots. Is that what you would call a fair election?

    What you refer to, incorrectly, can be read in the Suffolk Times, July 7, 2003 issue. Act 1: NFAWL refused to accept certified mail containing our membership dues. It was “unclaimed.” Act 2: We mailed them again, certified, clearly marked MEMBERSHIP DUES on the envelope so NFAWL would not assume the envelope contained petitions to run again. That was REFUSED by NFAWL. Gillian Wood-Pultz said she “never refused anything,” but we had the returned envelope marked REFUSED. Act 3: We tried other means to submit dues without receiving acknowledgement.

    NFAWL then went on to close the 2004 Annual Meeting to the public. Annual Meetings had previously been open to the public. They revised the Bylaws that they had failed to honor before, and gave the Board the power to reject “people who have been detrimental to the league” after having an “appropriate hearing.” This, from the same people who arranged to have 90 people apply for membership as a group when the Bylaws required interviews of individual candidate members. In their court suit, the court ruled that the group could not be refused membership as a group, and they had to be accepted. Needless to say the Cosimanos and Bitses won that election and took power with Gillian Wood-Pultz becoming Executive Director.
    The following year, members were told that there would be a vote–“to simplify operations membership would be abandoned.” Curiously, this took place immediately after members were expected to pay annual dues, in June, to be able to vote, in July. There was no offer to refund dues. Dues became “donations.”

    Between 2002 and 2005 NFAWL Directors spent $261,573 in legal/professional fees. During that period donations and unrestricted bequests totalled $331,731. So, $0.79 out of every $1.00 donated to the animals went to attorney fees. Is this what you consider appropriate?

    Carole and Gunther Geiss

  • Hey, Ace,

    How about doing something? Organize all those blanket givers to raise funds for slings. They get to give and the shelter ends the lint problem.

    How much effort goes into finding a home for that poor old dog on the wet concrete? Ever ask?

    You just an abject believer??

  • The Geisses’ frivolous lawsuits are just one way to waste the money people intended for animal care. Without the hostile takeover attempts by these paragons of public service, many things could be different. Will Geiss lead Southold to Bedford Falls or Pottersville in the environment of non-profit service?

    After more than 25 years in Garden City, Dr. Gunther R Geiss moved from his lucrative perch as Consultant to the Provost and professor at the financially mismanaged Adelphi University, to begin life anew here on the North Fork . Dr. Geiss no doubt learned a great deal at the feet of the university administrators who brought down student enrollment and faculty members on staff, while simultaneously raising the number of highly paid administrators with fabulous perks and stipends.

    Here in Southold, Geiss found his place on committees that would allow him to gain the ear of town officials. He can meet the Supervisor in a different “forum” (aka backroom) when necessary, Geiss shared to us in an online message to Scott Russell. Why discuss issues of public importance in public, if the attention gets too heated?
    Never having won an election in his life (no, not even dogcatcher), doesn’t have to stop a man from telling you how things are going to work around here. And wife Carole is no slouch either, in her letter writing to Councilman Vinnie Orlando, and convenient amnesia to details by said representative, to her self-serving agenda.

    How can the town board help Gunther and Carole get their way? Besides engaging in lawsuits and then complaining that the victims defended themselves, what assistance can be provided to Geiss’ campaign? How about having the town “up the ante”? If you make it more expensive to operate the shelter, that’s a good start. How about demanding a $100,000 surety/performance bond? That would drain a few thousand annually if NFAWL can get a bond written. Then, how about making NFAWL pay for the structural defects that Dr. Geiss generously shared credit for building, with former councilman William Moore? Geiss said those NFAWL ingrates objected every step of the way in his glorious mission! Make em pay!

    I have a little question for you. If Dr. Geiss built your house, and the roof leaked, wouldn’t you expect Dr. Geiss to pay for fixing it? (Where was the surety bond that time when the town implemented their own architectural design at the new shelter?) Maybe from Geiss’ viewpoint, he’d prefer you charge your housekeeper, since she gets paid to work under that roof. Hey, it wasn’t leaking until she started up the washer and dryer. With all that damn lint.
    Can’t we make NFAWL pay for all utilities in the town owned building, too? The electric bill, the heating bill, the trash pickup? Make em pay. And when the pot gets too big, and NFAWL is gone, maybe we can appoint someone? Why, Carole would be a natural choice, wouldn’t she! And all of a sudden peace reigned in Pottersville, ugh, I mean Southold.

  • My mistake, I said the town demanded a $100,000 surety/performance bond from NFAWL. The actual amount is $200,000. Even more money in fees redirected away from intended, charitable purposes.

  • This is getting silly. I received a letter from Mr. Geiss just the other day demanding that I recuse myself from any dealings with the NFAWL or the contract because I proclaimed at a public meeting that that group has done an “outstanding job for the past 30 years”. He also took notice that I said I have known Gillian for 30 years (a bit of a stretch on my part, it is closer to 25). He claims that this means I have a bias in favor of the league. Now you claim that we are somehow working in a conspiricy with the Geisses against the league. How about if neither is true? The Town is trying to standardize it’s contracts with ALL vendors and a performance bond is one of those items we like to have. We have already told the Attorney for the league that we would expect the league to add some additional costs these items may require to the base cost so that these costs would not be ‘out of the leagues pocket”. By the way, I do not think that holding an opinion that I believe the NFAWL league has done an excellant job even remotely suggests that I can’t perform the taxpayers business without bias, however, I have referred it to the Ethics Board and I will live by the determination of that Boards’ findings. On the issue of the contract, there is give and take in any contract and I believe that the issues will resolve themselves. I know the Board in very interested in getting this wrapped up, with or without my participation. Scott Russell

  • How about if both are true?

    Supervisor Russell and the Town Board should be working with NFAWL. NFAWL works for Southjold Town.

    The problem is that Supervisor Russell and the Town Board should not be working for the Geisses.

    When will the Ethics Board meet next? Will they wonder why the Supervisor is reporting himself?

  • Who is Ace Grumman?

    A descendant of Leroy Grumman, the founder of Grumman Aircraft Corp.? Perhaps a “black sheep”?

    Or is Ace a member of the extended family of Grumman Aerospace Corp. now Northrop Grumman?

    Is Ace one of the accomplished who conceived, or invented, or engineered, or built, or tested: the world’s best carrier-based aircraft, the predecessor of the orbiting Hubble Telescope, or the Lunar Module which put people on the moon?

    Is Ace one of those who merely watched and then exclaimed, “We did it!” rather than the more truthful, “They did it!” Was Ace just another fan who believes Ace participated with the aces on the field when all Ace did was drink, eat, watch and cheer?

    Is Ace Grumman just a name of little meaning, a nom de plume, a veil to hide behind?

    Doesn’t Ace find a little factoid and then imagine and create an entire image of a person? Doesn’t Ace make connections where none exist? Doesn’t Ace make associations where none exist? Doesn’t Ace say there are faults which do not exist?

    Does Ace do this to avoid facing painful truths that test Ace’s beliefs? Does Ace refuse to dispute ideas? Does Ace try to destroy the messenger who brings the idea? Does Ace react from gut-level emotion? Shouldn’t Ace remember what the gut contains.

    Does the person called Ace deserve the title “Full ace,” or the title “Half ace,” or the title “No ace at all?”

    To those who deal with Ace a simple wish: Illegitimi non carborundum!

    Who really is Ace Grumman?

  • Hi Gunther!
    Requiscat in Pace (R.I.P.), if you can. Moving to Arizona?