WP's interview in today's Buffalo News only shows how desperate he is getting. Who do you think did this informal poll? Who did they poll? His family, the Walsh family and the few friends he has left. I guess when you screw up the town in 7 months and you don't want anymore made public you eliminate the opposition. WP's hero must be the Queen of Hearts. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!
Doesn’t NPR or the Buffalo News do any research before announcing Wally’s news? Ask town employees about the letter they received? Poor Journalism. Now that he is powerless, the idiot will not stop to hurt everyone around him!Originally Posted by leavintown
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...ry/398551.html
Interesting development. Wally has taken the offensive, and come up looking like a hero. The defect in the Gaughan plan is just drop two seats, but which two.“I haven’t met anyone who is against the idea of fewer politicians,” he [WP] said. “No one on Piotrowski said informal polling has found most residents in favor of board size reduction, though the idea has been slower to take hold among politicians the board is jumping up to support the idea, but I hope [that will change].”
I think that there should first be a referendum on the dropping of the two seats, and then if approved, all board members should resign, and there should be an open election for the two council seats, and possibly the supervisor's seat.
That is the only fair way in the case of a divided board.
Good idea, for a whole new election. They could also just eliminate the 2 newest council members, since they don't have alot of experience. As far as WP looking like a hero, that is quite a reach. Those that know what is going on in town will see this as a last ditch effort to wrestle control since he seems to have lost some power. Maybe WP should take his toys and go home since he can't play nice in the sandbox.
I agree, Wally needs to up for a referendum, maybe we can get rid of the supervisor position and just have three councilmen. Wally’s move to have a smaller board is only another attempt to be a sovereign!
Hurting everyone around him how?
Buffalo Web Hosting and Graphic Design
www.onlinemedia.net - www.vinyl-graphics.com
Web hosting / Web Design - Signs, Banners, Vehicle Graphics
WOW !!!! One day after this edict, Wally drops the bomb. Coincidence ? Some will say we already have a psycho on the council.
Whatever,.....lots of average folks in town are going to like the idea of eliminating elected officials. They should eliminate the receiver of taxes position and consolidate it with the town clerks office like Cheektowaga did in 2006.
Last edited by Spirit of Ebenezer; July 24th, 2008 at 04:34 PM.
A remark should only hurt within it's proportion of what is true.
Quit complaining about downsizing government. Is your head in the preverbial sand? NYS is $5 BILLION IN DEBT, expected to rise to $22 Billion within 3 years. You know what that's called? Runaway Debt! Who pays for it? WE DO! Do we want to? NO! What's our alternative? Reduce the size of government & reduce spending - REDUCE THE DEBT / REDUCE TAXES - OR MOVE!
He sure is desperate. In fact he was here a couple of weeks ago posting some **** about a 30% increase in Health Insurance! What a god damned fool...Oh, wait. Never mind, that was you.
Carry on.
I wonder if it was his plan to push away and cause pain to all his old friends’ except the Walsh's; Chris and Sheila!
Wheatfield also is looking into eliminating the receiver of tax position. Based on the 2008 Re-org. meeting stated salaries of elected officials, West Seneca would save more money eliminating the receiver of tax position than two council seats. It could be done gradually like Cheektowaga did it. It was a smooth transition there and they also eliminated 6 part-time employees along the way as well. You can find this under the Cheektowaga town website under the 2004 address from the supervisor.
Last edited by Spirit of Ebenezer; July 24th, 2008 at 05:51 PM.
A remark should only hurt within it's proportion of what is true.
With three board members, you only need one to agree with you to get what you want.... Beware, if only two people are at a meeting, that gives each 100% of the power to say no to something. It also makes a violation of the open meetings law almost certain. Never could two board members talk without it being in public session, yeah, like that would happen.
The whole ploy anyway is to get the spotlight off the serious issue... $3.9 Million.... Saving the average taxpayer $2.00 -$2.75 a year isn't worth the reduction of the checks of two extra people.... Come to think of it, if that $3.9 Million was overlooked, maybe we need to think of adding people... Nah, just exchanging the ones we have will work.
I agree the receiver of taxes is something easily done by a bank. However, am I the only one that thinks after the two town board members (GRABER AND BOVE) who saved West Seneca $500,000 in health care cost should be replaced with a dictator? He wants to get rid of them after they stripped the Supervisor of his power!
Wake Up WS!!!!!!!!
Eliminate your opponents <----- sounds like something from "The Art of War" ?
I have some serious reservations about reducing the number of representatives on the Town Board. In addition to the possible political ulterior motives that others mentioned is it truly going to result in a savings? Are the remaining three members going to say that they are doing the work of five and therefore use it as a justification to raise their pay? Are they going to use this as justification to hire others? I would much rather pay $60,000 to have two people accountable to me through my vote than see no or little savings and the hiring of political syncophants who are not accountable to me through my vote.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote