Response from Fulmer to Nov. 8 letter (Exhibit H) and a Nov. 7 email from Borislow to O’Sullivan (not included). Fulmer starts by informing Ederer that it’s improper for Borislow to contact O’Sullivan on legal matter without consulting WPS lawyer (Fulmer). Fulmer responds to substance of letter by saying Borislow had been invited to Oct. 25 meeting (he was, after all, a member of the board at that time) and also did not accept several invitations to hearings in June and July.
Response from Fulmer to Nov. 8 letter (Exhibit H) and a Nov. 7 email from Borislow to O’Sullivan (not included). Fulmer starts by informing Ederer that it’s improper for Borislow to contact O’Sullivan on legal matter without consulting WPS lawyer (Fulmer). Fulmer responds to substance of letter by saying Borislow had been invited to Oct. 25 meeting (he was, after all, a member of the board at that time) and also did not accept several invitations to hearings in June and July.
Response from Fulmer to Nov. 8 letter (Exhibit H) and a Nov. 7 email from Borislow to O’Sullivan (not included). Fulmer starts by informing Ederer that it’s improper for Borislow to contact O’Sullivan on legal matter without consulting WPS lawyer (Fulmer). Fulmer responds to substance of letter by saying Borislow had been invited to Oct. 25 meeting (he was, after all, a member of the board at that time) and also did not accept several invitations to hearings in June and July.
Response from Fulmer to Nov. 8 letter (Exhibit H) and a Nov. 7 email from Borislow to O’Sullivan (not included). Fulmer starts by informing Ederer that it’s improper for Borislow to contact O’Sullivan on legal matter without consulting WPS lawyer (Fulmer). Fulmer responds to substance of letter by saying Borislow had been invited to Oct. 25 meeting (he was, after all, a member of the board at that time) and also did not accept several invitations to hearings in June and July.