Desired changes to West Seneca's Code of Ethics

[Niagara]

Eb, I believe you have seen the light. Someone smarter than me, oops, I mean Warren. However, he won't respond. Although one of his buddies will answer for him. Guaranteed.

Wow ! 8 minutes after you guaranteed it, it happened. Pumpkinface obliges you. The Amazing Erly ?

The Eb and Erly show. Like Pumpkinface said, "pathetic".

[FisherRd]

The Eb and Erly show. Like Pumpkinface said, "pathetic".

...Que?

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

The Eb and Erly show.

......"Overture, Dim the Lights,"................

You know the critics initially panned Cheers and Seinfeld when they first premiered. Think I'll hang around in here for a while. How 'bout you Erly ?

[erlyrizr1]

......"Overture, Dim the Lights,"................

You know the critics initially panned Cheers and Seinfeld when they first premiered. Think I'll hang around in here for a while. How 'bout you Erly ?

I'm in. Won't skim the posts like Pumpkinhead though. Stayin right where I'm at. Hello Manuel. Welcome. But before you insult me please read the posts. All of em. If you still disagree with me as to getting answers, that's fine. But you should inform yourself first. And from what I hear, you thought the posts were pretty funny. TTFN.

[Niagara]

HE did by calling them out. And so be it if this is an attack against someone who starts a thread and then sits by while everyone else does his dirty work. All I'm asking for is a few answers to some questions that I have had in this post and many others. Unfortunately, you lose credibility when you won't or CAN'T answer. And no, I'm not threatened but I am right about one thing. He hid behind a rock and first Psycho and then you, Pumpkinhead, came to his defense. It's what I've said all along. He starts the battle and runs away. That being said, I rest my case.

It seems to me:
1. He was making an observation about something he came upon while researching something else, no doubt the Clinton St. athletic field.
2. It was not an attack, but an observation of unusial legal activity.
3. There was no call to arms on his part, no "dirty work" requested.
4. He is under no obligation to answer you or anyone else.
5. He has not lost credibility, you have for not understanding 1-4.

[erlyrizr1]

It seems to me:
1. He was making an observation about something he came upon while researching something else, no doubt the Clinton St. athletic field.
2. It was not an attack, but an observation of unusial legal activity.
3. There was no call to arms on his part, no "dirty work" requested.
4. He is under no obligation to answer you or anyone else.
5. He has not lost credibility, you have for not understanding 1-4.

Manny, it's apparent that your misled, misguided, misinformed, mistaken and missing the point completely.

(1-3) His observation included the names of the Reidy, Nigro, and Liberatore families, none of which waspertanent to anything. I believe that is an attack.

(4) You are correct. But all I asked for was simple answers, not only on this post but others as well, to my questions. You should do your homework and research.

(5) And, yes, he has lost credibility. Yours is beginning to fade as well with your obvious bias to your friend. Your feelings toward my credibility doesn't matter. But thank you anyways.

See, now that wasn't hard. I answered all of your concerns and mistruths and it took me all of 4 minutes. That's all I asked of Warren. Nothing more, nothing less. He couldn't, wouldn't, won't or CAN'T.

So let's recap. You hit one out of five. I refuted four of em. I look forward to your next post. It's gotta be better. Remember, do your homework before you reply.

[Niagara]

Remember, do your homework before you reply.

I didn't do my homework, so I won't be able to expound on how you need to see someone about that delusion problem of yours.
TTFN

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

I didn't do my homework, so I won't be able to expound on how you need to see someone about that delusion problem of yours.

......looks like someone is bucking for a show of their own.

[dtwarren]

The Eb and Erly show. Like Pumpkinface said, "pathetic".

It appears that the Eb and Erly show has been canceled due to Erly being placed on a short leash!

[Pumpkinhead]

It appears that the Eb and Erly show has been canceled due to Erly being placed on a short leash!

I guess Eb couldn't keep up with all of his identities.....

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

It appears that the Eb and Erly show has been canceled due to Erly being placed on a short leash!

Good point there Dan, and again utilizing levity at Erly's expense. Feels good, don't it ? Though it doesn't top your lawsuits and bankruptcy reference to Erly back awhile. I still get a chuckle out of that one, it was hysterical !

I guess Eb couldn't keep up with all of his identities.....

One of me is enough don't you think ? For some maybe one too many.

[Pumpkinhead]

One of me is enough don't you think ? For some maybe one too many.

Get well soon Erly. Just realized who you are and why we haven't heard from you.....

[dtwarren]

Good point there Dan, and again utilizing levity at Erly's expense. Feels good, don't it ? Though it doesn't top your lawsuits and bankruptcy reference to Erly back awhile. I still get a chuckle out of that one, it was hysterical !

Erly is a big boy, he can dish it so he should be able to take it.

[dtwarren]

Another issue that needs to be addressed as part of the public discussion on reducing the size of the TB is a stricter ethics policy. At the last TB meeting Mr. Piotrowski voted on the resolution to authorize outside counsel for the TB in litigation over a legal proceeding where he has an adverse interest in. The motion passed 4-1 so no harm, no foul, however it higlights the need for this policy particularly if we reduce the board to 3 members. What if one of them is disqualifed due to a conflict? On any board a tie vote results in the motion or question not passing. This is much more likely on a board of 3.

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

At the last TB meeting Mr. Piotrowski voted on the resolution to authorize outside counsel for the TB in litigation over a legal proceeding where he has an adverse interest in.

What was the legal proceeding you reference in this instance ?

What if one of them is disqualifed due to a conflict? On any board a tie vote results in the motion or question not passing. This is much more likely on a board of 3.

.....Is it fair to surmise that in essence it gives more control and influence to fewer ?