I attended the February 9 Board of Education open meeting held in the Roslyn High School.

There were only four parents who pleaded their case for programs that they wanted to see included in the new superintendent's budget. The majority in attendance came to hear the updated status of the lawsuits filed against fellow neighbors that is tearing this school district apart. Ten volunteers rose from the audience to tell the BOE what was on their mind. After each speaker finished, the audience responded with loud applause to show their appreciation for the sincere and orderly manner in which individuals conducted themselves. But more important, the audience was in overwhelming agreement with the opinions that were being expressed.

I will never miss another open BOE meeting again. This is the place where one can learn to separate fact from fiction. Many of the speakers are so bright and accomplished, and know how to phrase a question, that you hear no ambiguity, unless the question is being answered by our trial attorneys or our very own three of the seven board members who happened to be practicing attorneys. The expression that "all politics are local" also appears to be flourishing right here in Roslyn.

The first speaker told us, that after serving on the "Costigan Board" for only eight months, a lawsuit was served against her that has caused her to become so ill that she had to resign from her longtime job, that her family lives in constant terror of losing their home, and the tension in herhouse hold is robbing her children of a stable environment for their upbringing.

Another gentleman, whose family has resided in Roslyn since the 1940s, explained that before his retirement, he was considered a highly respected, but tough employment attorney. What he said next was mind-boggling. This attorney met with our former superintendent many times over the years and was completely fooled by him. So how can members of this BOE argue that the former BOE members should be held responsible?

One woman asked if a survey that she requested from the residents of Roslyn in her Letter to the Editor, had been received and what was the tally? The BOE replied that approximately 200 responses have been received to date. Over 80 percent favored dropping the lawsuit against former BOE members. Now I ask the reader to remember that 200-response number.

Another woman grilled the two trial attorneys from Farrell Fritz. Was it a fact that our present board was forced by law to initiate a lawsuit against the former members of the BOE? The trial lawyers finally admitted that it was only their professional recommendation. The place went dead silent. Once again this community was lied to. My immediate response to a woman sitting to my left was "with fees topping $600 an hour, it is the old wolf guarding the hen house story."

A Roslyn Estate resident then walked up to the microphone to express his view that this community must rid itself of Mr. Saffron, Ms. Ben-Levy and Mr. Borowick because they voted to support this bogus lawsuit. This resident accused Mr. Borowick of submitting a Letter to the Editor to The Roslyn News on Jan. 19, one filled with inaccuracies, innuendos, outright falsehoods, and criticism aimed at anyone who dared to disagree with him. Mr. Borowick stated he had received over 300 telephone calls and e-mails to support his vote. To those remarks the speaker shouted into the microphone "Baloney." Now remember how I asked the reader not to forget the number 200? Mr. Borowick expects us to believe that he received 50 percent more unsolicited responses than an open survey addressed to the total population of Roslyn.

The Borowick letter goes on to imply that the Hevesi forensic audit valued at $1,000,000 is inaccurate. I wonder what Mr. Hevesi would say about that. Here's a perfect example of Mr. Borowick's use of innuendo and scare tactics. There are so many more implied threats that I will not further bore the reader, because it is apparent Mr. Borowick's motives cannot be trusted. For that matter, neither can the motives of Mr. Saffron and Ms. Ben-Levy.

It is my understanding that the current BOE commenced litigation against former BOE members on advice from counsel, even though it turns out it was based on faulty information. Yet when the previous board followed the advice of their counsel that was considered criminal. To that I respond, "Are you kidding me?"

It is common knowledge that the vote went 3 to 2, with one board member absent and another abstaining, in favor of continuing the lawsuit. Once again, Mr. Saffron, Ms. Ben-Levy and Mr. Borowick avoid talking about the human toll. Go after the insurance companies where the real money is, but leave these volunteers alone. The damage that these three attorneys have inflicted on this community must end. Over $750,000 has already been spent, with no upper limit in sight. Farrell Fritz also admitted that they could not guarantee that further expenditures will bring in any additional monies. In fact, Mr. Saffron, acting as a liaison between the BOE and Farrell Fritz, when questioned, said that he would not reveal the cost to the community, because he is in negotiation to lower the fee structure. To Mr. Saffron I say: Regardless of all your political connections and endorsements, you will be voted out of office as soon as your term expires. How dare Mr. Saffron keep the taxpayers in the dark? It is now very apparent that Mr. Saffron, Ms. Ben-Levy and Mr. Borowick are incapable of listening to the majority of this community. I personally feel that these three attorneys are trying to gain valuable litigation experience at our expense, so they will be able to go out and apply for consultant positions at other school districts.

The single most positive piece of information I learned that evening, again in my humble opinion is the veil of secrecy has finally been unmasked when Farrell-Fritz revealed that the lawsuits were optional. No longer can Mr. Saffron, Ms. Ben-Levy and Mr. Borowick hide behind the confidentiality issue. We have heard them repeatedly tell us that some resident has threatened to sue the current BOE if they do not pursue this lawsuit. Once again, more scare tactics and lies. What person in his right mind would want to incur the additional expense to this community? And if they won such a lawsuit, who would pay the $11.2 million? Every citizen would have to pay it - in addition to the Board's attorney fees. When will Mr. Saffron, Ms. Ben- Levy and Mr. Borowick start listening to all members of this community, not just the few who agree with them? Any way, what Farrell-Fritz reluctantly revealed now renders Mr. Saffron, Ms. Ben-Levy and Mr. Borowick's argument nothing more than a moot point. There is now no valid reason to continue litigation against the former members of the BOE. Let us finally have some transparency here.

We all remember how former President Clinton's campaign slogan helped defeat his opponent. That slogan "It is the economy stupid" was brilliant.

I would advise, when talking to Mr. Saffron, Ms. Ben-Levy and Mr. Borowick that we remind them "It is the lawsuits stupid" that will remove them from office.

I further propose that Mr. Borowick be defeated. This will finally break the stranglehold that the three attorneys, voting as a block have held over our BOE this last year.

A new board will be able to end the lawsuits against our fellow neighbors, allow us a fresh start, redirect our tax money toward serving our children and regain our educational focus. When you and your neighbors discuss the pros and cons of potential candidates for the three board open spots in May, remember one other slogan: "Any one but Borowick."

Isadore Rakofsky