I am writing in response to a recent opinion piece relating to Commissioner Michael Dolan of the New Hyde Park Fire District entitled “Dolan Dodges a Bullet.”
Let me first begin by noting I am not affiliated with the commissioner nor am I a resident of the fire district. I am a person that just read the opinion column on a co-worker’s desk and was floored by the editorial staff’s stunningly biased and ignorant comments.
These are comments unbefitting of a member of the Fourth Estate, even if they are couched as “opinion.”
At the outset, it must be noted that newspaper journalists should have a working understanding of how our form of government operates, especially if they are going to cover governmental entities and the courts.
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, “Fourth Estate” essentially means that the press is the unofficial fourth branch of government that independently works toward keeping the other three constitutional branches of government in check.
This newspaper, however, through its opinion piece on Commission Dolan, has made it abundantly clear that it does not have any concept of what its role should be and has also made it clear that its editorial staff has does not have a working understanding of the U.S. Constitution or the liberty it protects.
Specifically, I refer to the editorial staff’s reference to the New York State Supreme Court’s reversal of the New Hyde Park Fire District’s administrative decision to remove Commissioner Dolan from his active status as a firefighter on Due Process grounds as being a “technicality.”
I assure you a dismissal of charges made against any citizen of the United States on the ground that their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right has been violated is not a technicality.
Indeed, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is what prevents us all from being picked up on the street by the police and thrown in jail without a trial. Every citizen is entitled to this protection under the law regardless of whether a member or members of the editorial staff of this newspaper have a personal or political grudge against Commissioner Dolan.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides in part that: “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The protection afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a technicality. It is a right that protects each United States citizen from losing their life, liberty or property without the right to procedural due process (i.e. the right to a fair process or hearing).
This clause to the Fourteenth Amendment was inserted by the Founders to protect us all from some governmental entities that may unjustly take your life, liberty or your property and the Clause worked as intended in this instance. .
Moreover, if you take the time to look at Justice James P. McCormack’s decision (which is available on the New York State Unified Court System’s website) you will see that it sets out the facts of this situation.
First, the decision notes that there was dissension between Commissioner Stein and Commissioner Dolan on how the New Hyde Park Senior Citizens Smoke Detector Program was to be run. It also states that Commissioner Dolan took the smoke detectors and returned them to the Nassau County Fire Museum & Educational Center, the entity that provided them to the fire district.
Other reports have noted that his was done because Commissioner Dolan believed someone in the firehouse was stealing them.
The decision also states that Commissioner Stein initiated criminal and departmental charges against Commissioner Dolan after Commissioner Dolan returned the smoke detectors to the Nassau County Fire Museum & Educational Center.
Justice McCormick noted that there was no evidence that the smoke detectors were taken by Commissioner Dolan for any personal gain.
Finally, the decision notes that all criminal charges were dismissed against Commissioner Dolan. In the criminal justice sense, dismissed means that the criminal charges asserted against Commissioner Dolan were without foundation. Simply put, the charges should not have been brought in the first instance because there was no culpable criminal conduct.
This situation sounds more like a political vendetta by one commissioner against another; bring criminal charges against your enemy because they did not agree on how the smoke detector program should be run.
That type of conduct is shameful and the decision of the Fire District Board was properly overturned by Justice McCormack on sound legal grounds not a technicality.
The editorial staff would be wise to read the Constitution.
Robert Maloney
Oceanside
