In the past administration things seemed to get accomplished with out public knowledge or with just a few people involved. I don't think the people want the board rushing to approve items without a clear table from the past. I think the right mayor and board are in place to move the village in the right direction except in the consideration of police consolidation

It has been my experience that committees proceed with a directive of some sort and present their findings to the board that issued the directive. It is, as Mr. Vatter pointed out, the responsibility of the board to decide what actions are taken. Mr. Murphy perhaps has become more personally attached to the master plan than he ought.
In another matter, it pains me to see the Food Bank property issue raising such venom. I respect Deke and the Mayor very much. I think that they are both very civic minded, and savvy managers. Their styles are different and that may be the crux of it. I have a copy of the study done of the property and I am pretty sure that soil samples were not done. If I remember correctly, they were not deemed 'necessary'. Although the reason for them not being necessary is rather vague and may have had something to do with $$$ or who was paying.(Apparently, I will have to dig the darn thing out of the file drawer and review it again. drat, and it is *such* an interesting read...(sarcasm, here))
Open government requires a little more work and more involvement simply because it *is* open. If you want to sit back and allow others to decide for you then you have lost your voice in the process. Hmmm, I think it's called compromise...
People have to learn how to play well with others.

Previous post by Kate Benson. I thought I had fixed that darn thing!

I find it interesting that Mr. Murphy, who sat on the board through years of the slowest action on issues of importance now screams for speed on the Master Plan (which took quite a bit of time to bring to completion, if I recall correctly). OK, I can understand if he feels so strongly about the plan he worked on. But then he turns around and criticizes the Mayor for utilizing the Plan in issues that are directly related -- which seems like a prudent thing to do, since the Master Plan represents the direction that the committee determined was good for the Village. Take all of this into consideration, and I can't help but assume that Mr. Murphy's agenda has little to do with progress and everything to do with an attempt to smear Mayor Gross, about whom he has made his feelings perfectly clear. Mr. Murphy is Moulton's man through-and-through, and he will continue with that in mind above all else.

I agree with your description of the relationship between a board and a committee, Kate. But let?s take it a little further. The Master Plan Committee was given the directive to draft the plan by a previously sitting Village Board. They did their job, which included opportunities for public input. The Board then had a responsibility to continue the process. The current Board has chosen to neglect that responsibility in favor of, what they indicate to be, higher priority issues.

Under the process you accurately describe, isn?t the current Board ignoring a ?directive? issued by a previous Board? Wouldn?t the Master Plan document then serve as a ?directive? for the sitting Village Board, itself an elected ?committee?, under which they proceed? The loop closes and the process works. Right now, we?re floundering.

A Comprehensive Master Plan serves as a broad foundation upon which all Village policy should be based. All of the discussions in the last 18 months, and their have been many, would be much more meaningful if they took place before a backdrop of a common vision- the Master Plan. What concerns me is that the current board has chosen to ignore the most significant responsibility put before them- to adopt a plan, or a set of guidelines under which to act upon specific issues. It seems that we?ve been acting like a ship without a rudder, responding to whoever screams the loudest.

What we?re seriously lacking here is a common vision. Do we want to be a vital, thriving village or a lifeless bedroom community? Our leadership doesn?t seem to know. If they do, they?re not saying. On the other hand, the C-O-H Master Plan articulates a vision created by consensus. If any changes need to be made to it, they would likely be in regard to sustainability and relocalization in light of the rapidly changing world.

All the issues- village square improvements, waterfront revitalization, parking, business or no business, consolidation, etc.- all these discussions should be taking place under the guidance of the Master Plan. The Master Plan shapes policy, not the other way around. The current Board seems to have things backward. Their response to the questions of Mr. Murphy and others is unacceptable. There is no higher priority than adopting a Master Plan. We have one that?s been drafted. Let?s get on with the review process so that we can finalize it. That way, we?ll know where we?re going. The world is changing rapidly. We?ve got to have a plan.

John B. Wenz, COH

I was at the meeting, and from my observation, there were several people there whose agenda clearly was to personally attack the Mayor, not raise issues. The tone of the comments made it clear to me, a relative newcomer, that the purpose was solely to make the accusations, not to gain information nor express concern (whether the topic was a Master Plan or Food Bank).

Although no one spoke during the Ethics Law Public Hearing section of the meeting, Gorden did indeed, as you reported, propose later that assessments of property owned by village officials be added to the ethics law. He didn't seem to accept the Board's reply, that the general nature of the Ethics Law covered the specfic concerns he expressed. (Note: Perhaps an article about this Ethics Law should be written by the local media, so that we can all understand how it works.)

May I add a thank you to the present Board and Mayor for having ethics now become an enforceable part of village government.

One small observation: I noted that Barbara Gosda reported she has done the paperwork to actually obtain the money which the State granted the Village several years ago, paperwork which seemingly should have been done at the time the grant was made. If that is any indication, there was a LOT of old catch-up work to do, left over from the old mayor and administration. Perhaps the various board members were speaking the truth when they have been busy, and felt that first you clean up the old and then you can start new items – like a master plan.

It's an old political trick to use personal attacks on the person who is left with the job of cleaning up your messes. But, is there enough personal negativity on the national political level, do we need it in Cornwall on Hudson as well????

didto

In regard to the question marks on my comment above- sorry it's a little dificult to read. The correct punctuation was all translated to ?'s when I pasted a Word document here according to our faithful Editor. My early morning pre-coffee spelling skills, however, are responsible for "their" instead of "there". I can't blame that one on the software glitch.....

John I would of thought you would have had a little more of a response to Emily Thomas. What do you say Emily about John W last response about his punctuation and using their and there?

First, I would like to remind everyone that we have seen new administrations at the town level not only ignore the work of previous administrations but blatantly scrap their achievements.

Second, we should all be careful what we wish for. One of the things that I objected to most about the previous Village administration was their desire to make this place more like Westchester or Long Island, with a myriad of local laws (such as the Property Maintenance Law) which were never properly enforced or else used capriciously. Cornwall-on-Hudson has a special character as a rural community and that should be preserved.

Finally, and this is a fault of all of our government entities, just because you're in session doesn't mean that you have to come up with new legislation. In general, we have enough laws. Somebody needs to weed through the existing laws and remove the ones that no-longer make sense! Either that, or all laws should expire automatically after some period of time...