Letter: Curran: Everett a gender-based bully

To the Editor,
This is all very interesting. On Saturday Nov. 9, I was sick in bed for most of the day with a bad case of fever and chills, not answering any phone calls from anyone—actually oblivious that the phone was even ringing. When he was unable to leave a voicemail because my box was full, he proceeded to send me an email at 1:45 p.m.

I didn’t feel any particular need to respond immediately, as 1) I couldn’t physically talk on the phone because I was simply too sick and 2) I found it highly inappropriate that, never having personally met this man or given him my contact information, he would attempt to contact me at home over this issue.

On Monday, Nov. 11, I responded an email of my own to Mr. Everett, which I thought was quite reasonable. Mr. Everett never replied to this email. He instead proceeded directly with his open letter to the leaders of the community, press and critical of myself, Leon Sculti and Ray Tartaglione.

I contacted Leon Sculti to find out if he had received a similar communication from Mr. Everett. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, he had not. I also contacted Mr. Tartaglione to see if he had received a similar communication from Mr. Everett. He had not.

Mr. Everett at no time made any attempt to contact either one of these men privately at their homes to discuss his beef with their comments about him. Only me. It will not be lost on any women reading this exactly what was going on there. You have the same issue with three people, two of whom are men, one of whom is a woman, and the only one of the three you choose to target personally is the woman. This is a classic bullying and intimidation tactic that doesn’t work with this particular woman.

He essentially demands an apology from me, but, after being asked to outline exactly which comment it was that he had concern, he has no response. So, I have no clue what it is he thinks I am supposed to apologize for. Having an opinion? I think not.

In closing, I think that the most interesting part of his whole letter is that Mr. Everett states that, when the SPI issue comes before the city Planning Commission, of which he serves as chairman, he has said from the get-go that he would recuse himself. Seems to me that, if you know from the outset that there is something you are being asked by a personal friend to be involved with that will require you to recuse yourself from down the road, that’s your tip-off that you shouldn’t be involved with it to begin with.

Now, I have to wonder just who owes who an apology. Perhaps the apology would be more apt coming from Mr. Everett to myself, Mr. Sculti, Mr. Tartaglione and all the members of the Rye community.

Deirdre Curran,
Rye