I?d like to start off by saying that I respect both Mr. Gross and Mrs. Gosda for voting for what they believe to be in the best interest of the Village on the soil testing matter. While I do not necessarily agree with their position, I feel that it is important for the elected board members to vote according to their conscience. During the discussion part of the meeting the soil testing work issue was discussed and Mr. Gross passionately defended his position on the issue. When the matter was put up for the boards vote three of the five board members voted to sign the contract to proceed with the soil testing work. Mayor Gross responded by literally saying he refuses to sign the contract and the board could take him to Goshen on the issue, implying they could sue him in an attempt to force him to sign the contract. I can not begin to tell you how appalling this response is to me.
CUT FOR LENGTH-EDITOR

Kerry Merritt

The Mayor is Legally bound to sign it.I have cited the New York State Law many times here. When the Majority of the Board makes a decision it is binding.

I believe it is appropriate to take him to court and to sue for all legal fees incurred. The village as put up with the Mayors wrath and indifference long enough. He has created a bitter working environment. Doubt it? Talk to the village workers.

Who can respect any Mayor who thinks he sits on a throne and can dictate? It's time to rid the village of the real divider. Can we wait until March. This Rule By Decree by the Mayor has to end.

If he feels he is acting in the best intrest of the village he is oblagated not to sign contracts that havent been reviewed by legal. I find it funny that other more complex contracts are being reviewed but the lawyers are being directed not to review a contract with the architect that has a relationship with mr Edsall. I wonder why?

Let's review a few facts.

In April, the new board majority fired the Village Attorney previously appointed by the Mayor. Never in the last 50 years of Village history has that happened without the Mayor's agreement.

In May, three firms were interviewed for the vacancy. The Mayor appointed one, the trustees hired the other two, over the Mayor's objection. Again, never in at least 50 years has that happened here. The trustees have stripped the Village's Chief Executive of his counsel. It's now clear that they've installed themselves in his place. It's outrageous -- and it's illegal.

Now to the DPW debacle and coverup. First, the trustees tried to sweep the soils investigation under the rug... CUT FOR LENGTH_EDITOR

Jon,
>>>In April, the new board majority fired the Village Attorney previously appointed by the Mayor. Never in the last 50 years of Village history has that happened without the Mayor's agreement<<<

Pg. 69 Dept. of State Local Government handbook
>>>the mayor
presides over all meetings of the board of trustees and
may vote on all questions coming before that body. The
mayor must vote to break a tie.<<<

Because it never happened before doesn't mean it was illegal. It IS legal. The Mayor is trying to subvert NYS Law. He cannot dictate to the board. He has to act with the board and if he can't break a tie he must go along with the Majority.

Jon,

>>>Now to the DPW debacle and coverup<<<

Are there charges pending against someone for a coverup? If so please enlighten us all. Saying there was a coverup does not make it true.

I dont undrestand why Mr Edsall would recuse himself in the matter of the yacht club.the apparent reason is he worked for them. Intrestingly he did not recuse himself in the DPW last night where he has a personal conflict of intrest.I wonder why? I noted that this was ironic as he made claims of inappreoprate behavor by Ms.Gosda. She then immediately provided documentation that he regected.He claims that the grant was for "the village square".Where is the village square? Are there lines defining it? With a nebulous term I think we could defer to the attached paperwork.I dont understand why the trustees Edsall Vatter expect the law to apply to other people not them.

Stay tuned, Pat. There's a lot yet to be learned about all the things that were going on when the DPW building was built.

But one thing we already know: the vote on whether to build there currently stands at 2 Village Engineers against, one LDC in favor. And that was because of the soil testing done in 1973.

It's a covered-up dump down there, Pat. And the Village Engineer in 2005 specifically said NOT to build a pole barn down there. But they did it anyway.

We'll find out why ... eventually.

As to the Village Attorney appointment, since the Village Law was rewritten in 1972, the Mayor appoints, the Board ratifies. Same as happens in Washington with cabinet appointments.

Until this year, it was never done otherwise in this Village. Until this board majority hijacked the Village government.

Hey, "Bob," why don't you enlighten us on the "debate on the footing structure" you say you know about. Because I haven't seen anybody who wants to admit that they're the one who designed that foundation.

And Editor, may I assume by the posts that remain that it's OK to call people "brown nosers" here?

Mayor Gross stay the course.

It is simplistic to suggest eliminating two trustee positions. Having a total of three board members would mean that two people would constitute a majority. Do you really want two people to make all the crucial decisions for your village? Protecting ourselves from our human faults is why most boards are comprised of at least 5 people.

posted by Rick Gioia on 01/23/10 at 8:58 AM

Mr Gioia is correct. 5 people protect is from >>>human faults<<< thus our village board votes and the majority rules so one person through his human faults cannot usurp power from the majority. Good Point Rick

First they don't want soil testing done, then it's not getting done fast enough.

Which is it?

Those who doubt can move to another village, we dont need youQ