Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Mr. Warren's Letter to the Editor

  1. #1
    Member TheLegendKiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    254

    Mr. Warren's Letter to the Editor

    To FisherRd with love, you wanted my response, here it is…

    This all started back in May of 2009 when Councilwoman Bove asked…

    EVALUATION OF SALARIES & DUTIES OF COMPTROLLER’S OFFICE STAFF

    Councilwoman Bove stated that she was looking to evaluate the Comptroller’s office and had previously asked for a report on the salaries and duties of the employees in that office. She questioned if that information was available yet.

    Comptroller Robert Bielecki responded that they were in the process of putting this information together and were trying to ensure that it was as thorough as possible.
    This issue was obviously not addressed and left on the back burner for when it was needed.

    We fast forward to July of this year when Shawn Martin and Dan Warren just happened to come upon this issue of the out of title pay of an employee within one day of each other. The individual in question just happens to be supporting and working on the campaign of Dale Clarke’s opponent who just happens to be the one to bring this out at the August 8 meeting.

    Then we get this from Mr. Warren…

    Clarifying Open Meetings Law

    2011-08-25 / Letters to the Editor

    I am writing in response to the letter to the editor, “Town has disregard for its employees,” which appeared in last week’s edition.
    The writer appears to misapprehend what the Open Meetings Law is intended, and in fact does, do. The Open Meetings Law makes discussion of all public business public.
    However, it permits — but does not require — a public body to enter into executive session to discuss personnel matters.
    First off, misapprehend? Really? Secondly, the letter from last week discussed the ethical implications of discussing the matter in public. I believe Mr. Warren purposely took it from a legal perspective to defend Dale. Very revealing there. Monday night, they did in fact go into executive session, discussed it and voted in public. This is the way it should have been done the first time, and I believe last week’s editorial suggested that.

    In fact, even matters discussed in executive session are not “confidential”; to be confidential, a statute must prohibit disclosure and leave no discretion to an agency or official regarding ability to disclose.
    The writer appears to insinuate a connection between Town Attorney Shawn Martin’s July 6, 2011, email and the discussion of this issue on SpeakupWNY. I am the one who started the discussion on that site on July 7, based on my email to the Town Board of that date.
    At the time I started the discussion, I had no knowledge of Mr. Martin’s email.
    Instead, it was based on my discovery of this issue while I was preparing for the upcoming hearing in my proceeding to remove the town’s comptroller and supervisor from office.

    Daniel Warren

    Indian Church Road
    I don’t believe there is a reasonable person alive that would look at the timing of this and think it was just a coincidence. If it was a few weeks or months apart, I would say ok, but a day? C’mon.

    The other thing I found interesting was Dale’s quote in the lead article…

    Outside of the meeting, Clarke said he should’ve instead voted “no” rather than having abstained from the decision.

    “This is nothing political,” he told The Bee Wednesday morning. “A couple of individuals came to me with this problem. I called the state comptroller and Civil Service ... and all of the above said it’s wrong.”
    So a couple of individuals came to him with the problem, even though it has been asserted in public that letters and e-mails were addressed to the whole board. But a couple of individuals came to him… hmm could it have been Bove, Shawn Martin and Dan Warren? The other fact here is that employees get out of title pay all the time and it is the department head, without the town council, that has the authority to authorize this.

    So in the end what we have is a well orchestrated attack, conceived by Bove, fed to Martin and Warren so that Dale could use it to go after a supporter of his opponent. The problem is, it backfired big time as he has now gotten three consecutive weeks of bad press out of this. Nice try guys, go back to the drawing board and start over, problem is, time is running out.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    41
    "So in the end what we have is a well orchestrated attack, conceived by Bove"

    Legendkiller - you're killing me! I asked you a couple of months ago to substantiate your claim that Christina Bove threatened Mr. Bielecki. You never provided any info. on that. Now you say that she has conceived and implemented an attack on a supporter of Clarke's opponent. You had previously stated that you do not believe in conspiracy... Why the accusations...? What is up with you?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    254
    TO Legend the distorter : Open meeting law Permits but does not require discussion of personal matters. What part of this statement confuses you. Out of Title pay for $20000 Taxpayers should know this. What other department heads authorize $20000 raises. According to Legend happens all the time . Hopefully for the taxpayer another lie by Legend. State Controller and Civil Service state her appointment was wrong. Now the conspiracy theory I am a firm believer you started the Kennedy conspiracy theory with the second gunman. That's how much credability you deserve.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLegendKiller View Post
    To FisherRd with love, you wanted my response, here it is…
    Actually what I wanted was to point out you got served a nice cup of shut the hell up by DTWarren when he answered your smarmy question about who he was and how he planned on holding the letter writer in check...

    You are a 2nd rate gossip that is unintentionally hilarious. Know your role...

  5. #5
    Member TheLegendKiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by FisherRd View Post
    Actually what I wanted was to point out you got served a nice cup of shut the hell up by DTWarren when he answered your smarmy question about who he was and how he planned on holding the letter writer in check...

    You are a 2nd rate gossip that is unintentionally hilarious. Know your role...
    Know my role? Better stop before I check you into the smackdown hotel. But seriously, you tell me that Mr. Warren answered how he planned to hold the letter writer in check. Can you take a moment to explain exactly how he did that. Because from my perspective his letter did more to hurt his credibility, and Dale's and his lawsuit.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    254
    Hurt Warren credibility and lawsuit. Why then did Piotrowski and his lawyer ask for a gag order reguarding the referees decision. What are they hiding from What's the matter Legend didn't you read Warrens post on this matter. Oh right it does not fit into your BS you spout, because it is the truth

  7. #7
    Member TheLegendKiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    254
    I believe Piotrowski's lawyer doesn't want more legal documents posted on this website until the matter has been resolved.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    254
    Legendkiller once again you lie and attempt to hide the truth from the taxpayers

  9. #9
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    Are you naturally this obtuse, or do you practice it. Mrs. Boldt asserted that it should have been discussed in executive session because that is required in order to keep the issue private, however she is wrong in this respect and I pointed that out. She also appeared to insinuate that there was a connection between Mr. Martin's e-mail of July 6 and the discussion that was started here by me, which there is not and I corrected that.

    Therefore her main contentions did not go unchecked.
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLegendKiller View Post
    Know my role? Better stop before I check you into the smackdown hotel. But seriously, you tell me that Mr. Warren answered how he planned to hold the letter writer in check. Can you take a moment to explain exactly how he did that. Because from my perspective his letter did more to hurt his credibility, and Dale's and his lawsuit.
    Is the smackdown hotel another paladino venture on slade?
    I hate to be the master of the obvious, but the letter he wrote corrected/challenged the original letter to the editor. I don't see how that hurt his credibility, unless of course you could show me where what he said was false? Can you do that, legend killer? Can you point out where what DT stated in his letter is not true?
    I'll be waiting for your reply, but something tells me that you won't be able to answer, so I'll be waiting a long time...

    Do the people you're carrying water for know how bad you are at this? I hope not, because the entertainment you provide is priceless.

  11. #11
    Member TheLegendKiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by FisherRd View Post
    Is the smackdown hotel another paladino venture on slade?
    I hate to be the master of the obvious, but the letter he wrote corrected/challenged the original letter to the editor. I don't see how that hurt his credibility, unless of course you could show me where what he said was false? Can you do that, legend killer? Can you point out where what DT stated in his letter is not true?
    I'll be waiting for your reply, but something tells me that you won't be able to answer, so I'll be waiting a long time...

    Do the people you're carrying water for know how bad you are at this? I hope not, because the entertainment you provide is priceless.
    I must say I really enjoy going back and forth with you, you are my favorite poster by far. I think we may have been friends in another life. My position on this is that the original letter talked about the ethical implications of mistreating town employees. The author relayed a personal account of her experiences and compared them to the current situation. At no time were the legal implications discussed, but rather the exemption of personnel discussions was highlighted to show that the town had the option of doing that, but chose to slander this employee in public. It was referred to as unprofessional and a disregard to employees. These are ethical considerations.

    Mr. Warren took it from the perspective of the town could have, but was not required to go into executive session for this. I believe he purposely took the legal route to avoid discussing the ethical implications of Mr. Clarke's behavior. Seeing as Mr. Clarke has come out with advertisements claiming to be the "watchdog" I believe it becomes fair game to then discuss his behavior, and in my opinion assert that he is not a watchdog, rather just a plain old bully.

    With Mr. Warren filing lawsuits to better the town and hold people accountable, for him to subvert one argument and create his own to make excuses for officials who do unethical things, to me, this hurts his credibility and yes brings into question why he would file a lawsuit against one official for doing what he believes was a wrong action, and then completely ignore the actions of another.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    254
    Bully wanting to know who or whom authorized an employee to receive a $20000 raise. The taxpayers deserve an answer. They deserve to have this person returned to the title she was hired for. Politics entered when a Supervisor and Controller agreed to this $20000, Cauder and Bielicki received raises when the Assistant Controllers job was eliminated As for unethical why has the lawyers for Wally and Bielicki filed a gag order on the decision of Warrens lawsuit What are they hiding

  13. #13
    Member TheLegendKiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by SOMETHING SMELLS View Post
    Bully wanting to know who or whom authorized an employee to receive a $20000 raise. The taxpayers deserve an answer. They deserve to have this person returned to the title she was hired for. Politics entered when a Supervisor and Controller agreed to this $20000, Cauder and Bielicki received raises when the Assistant Controllers job was eliminated As for unethical why has the lawyers for Wally and Bielicki filed a gag order on the decision of Warrens lawsuit What are they hiding
    This is where you are wrong and Dale is wrong. First off, Piotrowski had nothing to do with this, at all. Secondly, she was not working as Deputy Comptroller. She was performing the duties of the Deputy Comptroller and received out of title pay for doing this, why? Because her title was mini computer operator. Did this need to go before the town board for approval? No. Bielecki has the authority, as all department heads do, to authorize this. It happens all the time without the town board being aware of it. It's in the union contract, and just because Dale didn't bother to do his homework and didn't know what the hell he was talking about, doesn't make him right.

    As far as the gag order, I will give you that one, I am as curious as you are what it says, he should lift it.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    254
    You are wrong, When the question was raised at the Town Board Meeting. Meagen responded they believe their was 4 town workers working out of title. Stating when someone goes on vacation they would fill in temporarily. That does not give Bielicki the right to appoint Cauder to a post at $20000 a year raise with Piotrowski's knowledge to a job that was abolished. How long did they think she could keep on receiving this raise indefinitlely

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    254
    By the way I stated before you are such a liar, You stated here to lift the gag order and on another thread with the same question stated differently. A liar has to have a good memory

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Aquino's Letter to the Editor
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: July 28th, 2011, 03:15 PM
  2. Henry Gull's Letter to the Editor 7/21
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 21st, 2011, 12:02 PM
  3. Letter to the Editor
    By Dougles in forum Speakup Here
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2011, 02:18 PM
  4. Governor's Letter to the Editor: Wow... just... wow.
    By MoreOfTheSame in forum Albany NY State budget Capital and Governor Kathy Hochul
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2009, 07:28 PM
  5. Blue Eagle's Letter to the Editor
    By crabapples in forum Hamburg, Orchard Park, Town Of Evans Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2007, 06:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •