Two weeks ago, the Smithtown News printed two separate articles regarding a proposal for future talks, to streamline government which was presented during the March 3rd work session. Both articles consisted of the same opinion as well as incorrect information. This is a common occurrence in a paper known for printing what the Town Supervisor states, despite factual evidence. One must ask why the smear campaign, when the concept to restructure government was something the Supervisor has advocated for over the last 10-15 years?
Currently Smithtown Taxpayers are funding over 3.4 million dollars in annual salaries for Department heads. The proposed restructuring would phase out a portion of department heads, after they retire and appoint four commissioners. The restructuring would save more than a million dollars annually in personnel salaries, not to mention countless savings for equipment and materials between departments. For example: At present, if the parks department needs a dump truck, snow plow or any other piece of equipment they do not own, the parks department pays the highway department for use of property. The proposal for restructuring would do away with this type of unnecessary interdepartmental spending.
Both articles read like pure propaganda, using the same formidable quotes less than ten pages apart. The editorial included fictional monetary figures, which were never included in Councilman Creighton’s proposed proposal, which was also misconstrued by “Smithtown’s Official Newspaper” depicting the work session discussion as a pitch for a motion rather than a discussion for further research. Any resident who has lived in Smithtown for more than a decade would recall Supervisor Vecchio’s affirmation toward restructuring government during previous election campaigns, board meetings and printed editorial. Whether this change of heart stems from prejudice towards the Councilmen who took initiative toward a restructuring strategy or is just another senior moment caught on video like the name-calling incident prior to the February 26th board meeting, is irrelevant. Printing quotes and twisting documented discussions to reflect the political agenda of one designed to influence the public opinion is journalistic negligence. Repeating the very same content a few pages away, is just unprincipled.