Dear Editor: As a citizen of Secaucus for 40 years, a graduate of Secaucus Clarendon and Lincoln Schools, and a member of the community, I am compelled to write this letter to address the disturbing practices that were implemented concerning the treatment of my brother, Dave McAdam, a 13-year employee of the Secaucus Dept. of Public Works. On several occasions over the past 18 months, I have had conversations with Dave regarding a grievance he filed against the town of Secaucus. Having been involved in a number of grievance proceedings as a school administrator, my advice to him was to allow the union representatives to handle the situation and to continue to approach his job in the conscientious manner he had displayed in the past. About two weeks ago my brother called to tell me that he had received from a messenger at approximately 3 p.m. a letter stating that his salary would be reduced by $4000 annually (about 10 percent) and that the formal action would take place at the council meeting at 8 that evening. I made a comment to Dave that I strongly suspected that the timing of this action was no mere coincidence, but that it would be difficult to prove it was the act of retribution I believed it to be. (In future reference I will not refer to the $4000 as a stipend because the salary as stated in his contract includes the $4000 with no mention of a stipend or that any part of this salary is paid for work done specifically on the ice skating rink. The mere fact that town administrators now feel compelled to refer to this money as a stipend is evidence of their manipulating the facts to serve their own political purposes.) As a supervisor I find the manner in which my brother was notified of the reduction in salary to be thoroughly unprofessional. If Mr. Gonnelli maintains the open door policy he talked about (as reported in a recent article appearing in a weekly newspaper), why didn’t he give this worker the respect he deserves by explaining to him, in the privacy of his office, the reasons for his salary being reduced by 10 percent? As a supervisor I have had to deal with employees in matters of an unpleasant nature, but I have learned that when I know that what I am doing is fair and for the common good, a face-to face meeting, however unpleasant, is the appropriate approach to such a situation. This is why I question the motives of those who made this decision, behavior which leads me to believe that they were unable to look my brother in the eye and tell him that their way was the fair way to conduct this business. The Town Administrator, Anthony Iacono, stated that the decision to reduce Dave’s salary was not of a fiscal nature, but that it was a consequence of restructuring. According to his statements, this decision was made a year ago, but my brother was still being paid the increased salary until recently. If Mr. Iacono is correct, why was my brother not told of this decision until two weeks ago? And why did Mr. Gonnelli refuse to assign rink duties to Dave while fully aware that his salary had been increased in anticipation of Dave’s assuming responsibility for maintaining the rink? On those many days when Dave had been previously scheduled to maintain the rink, he was assigned other jobs, while part time employees were sent in his place. It seems to me that his supervisor, Mr. Gonnelli, had ample opportunity many months earlier to inform Dave of the changes that were made and, out of respect for my brother’s past record, to give him the reasons which prompted the change in assignments, and more importantly, to notify him of his reduction in pay. Am I to believe he “forgot” to do so? The aspect of this unfortunate situation that I find most disturbing is the fact that a loyal, hard-working employee of this town can be treated so poorly. Coming from a family with a very strong work ethic, I am appalled to see my brother’s efforts held in such low esteem by those who should appreciate most the high quality of his work. In view of all that has occurred, it is clear to me that Dave’s reduction in salary was an act of retribution for actions taken not only by my brother, but also by other members of my family. In closing I would like to express my gratitude to Mrs. Jahn and my sister-in-law, Dawn McAdam, for the courage they have shown instancing up for what is right and decent. My hope is that when this situation is resolved, their husbands and all DPW employees can voice their grievances, formal or otherwise without fear of retribution. Mary Ann McAdam