To paraphrase an old legal saw, when the facts are with you, focus on the facts. When the facts are against you, change the subject. In the letter "Reform the Fair Campaign group," the author avoids the facts because they would reduce his argument to a fig leaf. He prefers to obfuscate rather than address the merits directly. He would also prefer that the Fair Election Practices Committee hold its hearings after Election Day, when it's too late.

Fact: the candidate signed the Fair Campaign Pledge knowing the FEPC procedures full and well. Fact: the misleading mailer at issue was delivered to voters at the last practical moment, at the end of the last week of the campaign. The complaint came to the committee the Sunday before Election Day, at approximately noon. Fact: the candidate was notified within minutes of receipt of the complaint by phone. Fact: the candidate received one copy of the complaint by hand delivery to his home and another by e-mail.

Fact: the candidate was advised that he could send a representative or a letter explaining his thoughts to the committee (as several candidates have done this year when they could not attend in person). Fact: the candidate did neither. Fact: instead of telling the committee his side of the story, he composed and sent press releases that, like the letter to this paper, avoided the merits of the complaint.

Fact: the candidate conducted press interviews at approximately the same time the hearing took place. Fact: the committee concluded that the mailer violated the pledge, not the candidate. Fact: the candidate did not fulfill his pledge to "publicly repudiate any individual or group whose activities would violate this Fair Campaign Pledge."

If I were the candidate, I would be mad, too. I'd be mad at the individuals who sent that misleading mailer into my district without my knowledge or my permission. Misleading the public during a campaign is wrong. The facts in this matter are clear.

ROME CELLI, BRIGHTON

Celli chairs the Fair Election Practices Committee