Accusation was broad assertion lacking supporting specifics

Chandos F. Caldwell's letter to the editor (Sentinel, Sept. 28) stated that I use innuendo and half-truths instead of facts in the issues I raise. It would have been a more intelligent criticism of me if he had referred to specific issues in his comments, rather than making a broad statement with no supporting facts.

Perhaps he was referring to the time when Mayor William Neary said that the state had mandated a new method of training police officers in the use of firearms. I phoned the state information service and found that this was not true. I raised the issue at a public Township Council meeting and informed the members of the misleading information upon which the administration based its reasoning to build the training center. The facility was built at a cost of $1.4 million. President Richard Nixon was put out office when he was accused of lying to the people. Did Mayor Neary lie to us in this case? I stated the facts. Does Mr. Caldwell have any information to the contrary?

Another issue was the Suburban and Academy bus fiasco. The administration gave the contract to Academy Bus Co. for services to New York. This was done even though the administration was warned by one of the council members that sufficient information was not available to make a decision. Suburban took East Brunswick to court and won the contract. The cost of the litigation was more than $300,000, paid by the taxpayers. The judge in the case stated that the paperwork, drawn up by the township and used as the request form for bids, was so poorly written that necessary information could not be obtained. I questioned - Who prepared the bid form? Was the form reviewed by the township attorney or the business administrator for approval? Someone should have been held accountable for such a blunder. Does Mr. Caldwell disagree that someone should be held responsible?

How about the trucking businesses that have been allowed to come into the Planned Industrial Zone, despite the fact that an ordinance was in place that forbids all trucking businesses? According to Mr. Caldwell, I shouldn't have criticized Mr. Neary and council members after so many months of pleading with the administration to enforce the ordinance.

Mayor Neary and the council stated that the trucking businesses were there legally because they were considered to be warehouses and distributors. Only after hiring lawyers, at considerable expense, were the truckers evicted. The judge in one case stated that they were truckers and should be removed from the area. Does Mr. Caldwell see any innuendo in this case?

I really don't understand what warped reasoning Mr. Caldwell used to state that I use half-truths and innuendo. Perhaps he would be inclined to reveal some specifics.

Frank J. Coury

East Brunswick