Wow! I have to disagree with this statement. I was at all the negotiations with the town. Mr Quigley not only remained silent, but he never offered the equivalent raises that the other bargaining unit in the town received. I also educated Mr. Quigley in the PERB rules that are as follows: section 209 c. comparison of peculiarities in regard to other trades or professions, including specifically, (1) hazards of employment; (2) physical qualifications; (3) educational qualifications; (4) mental qualifications; (5) job training and skills; If this is his categorization of we are better then the CSEA then he is mistaken. Stop the nonsense and lets move on. The 2011 budget is in place, stop the personal attacks on me and the PBA. The award was for 2009 and 2010. The budgeted increases in salary should have been put aside for the arbitration decision. The Town Board made a choice and took a gamble with taxpayers money. DO NOT RISK PUBLIC SAFETY FOR YOUR MISTAKES!!

I also must add Mr. Quigley states we as taxpayers. He resides in the Village of Cornwall on Hudson where he has a booming business .There is a statute that allows Towns to assess a special police tax on villages that have less then 4 full time police officers. He has decided not to exercise this action for what reason? He would have to pay more. The town would increase revenue, but he doesn?t care. The picture is clear rather then looking at the revenue that he could generate he wants reduce public safety in the Town.

I again pledge to the public the Town was proven to have the money to pay in PERB. The health insurance buy-out is as follows the town argues that the health insurance costs them a lot of money. We offered them an option to eliminate two of the highest paid employees in the department, but they refused. Why hold an employee on the payroll when you can save money, I don?t understand. Let them go!!

As a taxpayer, I have a problem with the amount of money spent to fight the police union. It is an arbitrator's job to award a decision that is based on fairness and market value, i.e. what every other comparable police department in the county is receiving and or paying for. When you say the union refused to negotiate, you are being misleading. What you should be saying is, you asked the union to bend over the barrel for you and they refused, thus saving themselves the embarassment of setting county and statewide precedent when it comes to contributions into medical and retirement benefits. The arbitrator then issued an award that was fair and consistent with the going market. You rolled the dice with $100,000 of money that I contribute to and you lost. Gamble with your own money, not mine.

With property values continuing to decline, a net loss of population out of Orange County, no real "private sector" job growth; does anyone really think that these agreements are sustainable? It's not a matter of whether people deserve raises, it's a matter of whether the taxpayer can continue to have annual property tax increases while their own wages are either flat or declining. Orange County still leads NY State in foreclosures. With that as the backdrop, all parties have to consider these economic realities when negotiating.

@Peter Malone. The arbitrator takes all of that into account when making his/her decision. They base it upon the fair market combined with the town's financial status and ability to pay. The town supervisor should have known and been aware of this before gambling with $100,000 of our money. He also should have known that an arbitrator was not going to set statewide precedent by having the police officers paying into their retirement system or contributing to their medical benefits for the length of their career. No other police agency in the county does that. Funny how nobody mentions the school tax and the fact that we have a kindergarten teacher making as much as the town police chief and a superintendent that makes more than the governor of the state. Or the fact that there are approximately 20 administrators in this school district. My school tax bill is more than FIVE times my town tax bill. I don't understand why the police are always the first to be attacked when it comes to tax bills. I'm curious. Does anyone know what our town supervisor is paid per year?

I noticed in the above letter, that the town supposedly offered the police a raise of 4% in 2009 and 3% in 2010 and the arbitrator awarded 4% and 3.5% for those same two years. So what does the difference come to in dollar figures, between four and five thousand a year total combined for all officers? And it cost how much to fight the union? $100,000. Hmm, great deal we got as taxpayers. Give me a call. I have some cheap land for sale...

Frank, do you think these agreements (and that would include the school district) and any of the the other agreements that have been signed (CSEA) are sustainable? I for one don't,unless we plan on blowing through the recently passed 2% property tax cap and continue to burden the taxpayer with more and more increases. At what point does it stop? Once again, it's not a question of whether they deserve it but one of can we truly afford it?

So what are you saying Mr Malone? That the town should violate state law and ignore the award issued by the arbitrator? The police deal was not a negotiated one. It was an award based upon a variety of factors and right in line with the going rate for the area. I have more of a problem with the $100,000 that the town wasted in fighting the police union and forcing them to arbitration. All to save 1/2 of 1%. The town was attempting to get the union to pay for a retirement system that, by law, cannot be paid for by the enrollee. Think about that for a minute. $100,000! The town should be held responsible for that money. At the very least, their legal counsel should have some explaining to do. That is the point of my previous posts. I absolutely agree with the fact that we need to look at all monies spent and find a way to reduce expenditure. I just think the town should be looking at areas where they could truly make a difference without sacrifing public safety or wasting monies in no/win negotiation situations.