It is impossible to establish weather the slab is settling without establishing control points at the time of construction. A report by William Mceveilly P.E. And James Fitzsimmions P.E. indicate very poor soils and recommend piles be used in construction. The daily field report performed by Mark Clark technician states that there is a maximum bearing capacity of 6,000 lbs. How does this support a 50,000 lb truck when loaded plus a building and snow. This test may nit have been in the footprint of the building and states that there was ash and glass at the test site. It also states the hole that was dug filled with water. In the matter of the D.E.C report regarding the capped landfill. We broke the cap by digging through it and putting a building there. Here is a good question. Why is finding problems bad? Then you can fix the problems. If we were to build a building worth $500,000 to $750,000 you would do soils testing. We heard from Mr Edsall and Vatter at the start of this problem. They very vocally stated there was nothing wrong with the building. They were wrong. Why would they be resistant to soils testing? I recommend that we get this out of the political environment and appoint a special commission to deal with this problem. This commission could meet more than once a month (like the village board) and not be distracted by all the maters on the village board's table (dog law,cross walk signs,environmental assessment forms, master plan issues,sewer line problems and a myriad of other things). Please appoint a commission to evaluate what happened and chart a course forward

Why go looking for problems? That was the attitude of BP as evidence was mounting that they there were, indeed, problems that if they were addressed could have prevented a disaster - not to mention many wasted dollars.

I fear that Mr. Breitenbach is right - it is clear what the intentions of some trustees are - and it is no longer a secret.

enough already, let's just burn the @#$%^&* thing down and move the DPW into the old cvs building.

It dont surprise me yet again that the same people speak out for Joe Gross in his defense.A special commission? thats what the board is there for but 2 members never wanted and still dont want that facility there so they will try to find almost anything that will waste more money and delay the repair process that should have been long underway. There are 3 other board members that have very high levels of degrees and im sure they are not hideing anything that would be of danger to the employees or the public. Just seems money keeps getting spent on tests that were already done and confirmed to be cleared from any danger ,hmm or maybe its a way to get something on paper to spell out what we want it to say.Stop playing games and trying to one up the other person and work together as a team and resolve the issues at hand and im sure the whole operation can be restored in a reasonable fashion .

One more thing to add...Mr. Argenio you should write your own posts as I can tell when you write in your own words or when you post from what someone prepares for you to post.You might find you will feel better about yourself.

You sound silly Bob. What you propose would ruin any possibility of litigation or do you think we (village residents)should pay for the fix? I feel fine Bob I live in the best place on earth.Oh by the way the the ethics board voted last nite to do a full investigation into my complaint here it is.
According to the ethics law adopted by the village of Cornwall on Hudson the citizenry are entitled to the expectation of exemplary ethical behavior. It is also my understanding that under the disclosure section 5 that I am expected to disclose my knowledge of what I believe is violations of the ethics law as a village official and citizen

Section 3 Conflict of Interest and standards of Conduct

It is the policy of the board of trustees of the village that all officers ,employees and consultants must avoid conflicts or potential conflicts of interest. A conflict or potential conflict exists whenever an officer,employee or consultant has an interest,direct or indirect which conflicts with his or her duty to the Village or which could adversely affect an individual;s judgment in the discharge of his or her responsibilities.
A Take action or participate in any manner whatsoever in his or her official capacity in the discussion , negotiation or awarding of contract or in any business or professional dealings with the Village or any department thereof in which the officer ,employee or consultant has or will have an interest , direct or indirect,in such contract or professional dealings.

Mr. Edsall is Directly related to the contractor who built the village DPW building; it is his brother in law.
Mr Edsall is the town of Cornwall Engineer and should recuse himself in any matter that may include the town of Cornwall
Mr Edsall is the town of NewWinsor Engineer and should recuse himself in any matter that may include the town of NewWinsor.
Mr Edsall's firm is the Engineer in the town of Blooming Grove and should recuse himself in any matter that may include the town of Blooming Grove
Mr Edsall should recuse himself in any matters dealing with the Fire company
Mr Edsall should recuse himself in all matters regarding the water department his firm was involved in writing the orange county water master plan
Mr Edsall should recuse himself in matters where he works for the Cornwall school district
Mr Vatter is a renter in a building that is owned by the contractor that built the DPW building.
Mr Vatter should recuse himself in any matters dealing with the Fire company

In section3 part F
Appear before any board or department of the Village as a representative or on behalf of an applicant to said board or department for the purpose of of influencing any action or proceeding,except on his or her own behalf or on behalf of the Village.?Appear? as used in this subsection shall mean communicating in any form, including ,without limitation,personally by letter by E-mail or by telephone. This shall not ,however ,be construed to prohibit the making of public comments to any board or department of the Village as a member of the general public.
Mr Edsall in the matter of Mountain valley guides was very outspoken about calling an ice cream window a restaurant not retail. This Included the statement about eating kyacks . As the planning board reviewed the records provided by the owner it was clear to all of the board members present that the prior approved use was retail and the proposed use is retail. Mr Edsall's comments were pressure to influence the outcome of a matter he had clearly not researched and was willing to violate the Ethics law that he voted for.

Section 4 Recusal
An officer ,employee or Village Consultant shall recuse themselves when faced with a conflict of interest. When an officer ,Employee or Village consultant perceives that he or she has a conflict of interest,which would violate the ethics code he or she shall notify the Mayor , chair or presiding officer of the Village agency,department ,council,commission or board on which he or she serves, as the case may be, that he or she needs to recuse from consideration of the matter and immediately step down or remove himself or herself for the duration of the consideration of the issue in question Chairs or presiding officers shall notify the Mayor of the recusal . If required , the mayor shall appoint or retain an alternate. To recuse oneself means to physically leave the presence of and not take part or participate in any discussion,review,deliberation or vote on the matter.
Mr. Edsall is Directly related to the contractor who built the village DPW building; it is his brother in law.
Mr Edsall is the town of Cornwall Engineer and should have recused himself in any matter that may include the town of Cornwall
Mr Edsall should have recused himself in any matters dealing with the Fire company
Mr Edsall should have recused himself in all matters regarding the water department his firm was involved in writing the orange county water master plan
Mr Edsall should have recused himself in matters where he works for the Cornwall school district
Mr Vatter is a renter in a building that is owned by the contractor that built the DPW building.
Mr Vatter should have recused himself in any matters dealing with the Fire company

Section 5 Disclosure of Interest
A. Any officer, employee or consultant who has, will have or intends to aquire a direct or indirect interest in any matter being considered by the Board of Trustees by the Village or by any other official,board,department,officer or employee of the Village and who participates in the discussion before or who gives an opinion or gives advice to any board,department or individual considering the same shall publicly disclose on the official record of the Village the nature and extent of such interest.

B. Any officer , employee or consultant of the Village who has knowledge of any matter being considered by any board ,department ,officer or employee of the Village , in which matter he or she has or will have or intends to aquire any direct or indirect interest , shall be required immediately to disclose in writing, his or her interest to such board , department , officer or employee and the nature and the extent there of to the degree that such disclosure gives substantial notice of any potential conflict of interest.

Mr Edsall has failed to disclose in writing his relationship with the builder
Mr Edsall has failed to disclose in writing that he is the town of Cornwall engineer
Mr Edsall has failed to disclose in writing in all matters regarding the water department his firm was involved in writing the orange county water master plan
Mr Edsall has failed to disclose in writing his relationship with the Fire company
Mr Edsall has failed to disclose in writing in matters where he works for the Cornwall school district
Mr Edsall has failed to disclose in writing what municipality's he works for .
Mr Vatter has failed to disclose in writing his relationship with the fire department.
Mr Vatter has failed to disclose in writing he is a renter in a building that is owned by the contractor that built the DPW building.

In summation Mr Edsall and Mr Vatter have violated the Ethics law of the Village of Cornwall. They have violated the Conflict of Interest and Standards of Conduct. They have violated the Recusal section and the Disclosure of interest section. I feel that the behavior of these two individuals falls far below the expectation of exemplary ethical behavior. I would remind the board that these are very serious matters that such violations are punishable as a class A misdemeanor. There are 3 major parts to the ethics law. Mr Vatter and Mr Edsall have violated all three major parts. Thank you for you're time in this matter.
Andrew Argenio

Nothing silly at all Andrew...You and all the other residents of the Village will pay one way or another as tax payers, so dont fool yourself because by the sounds of it money is being spent hand over fist and Im sure it wasnt gifted. The tit for tat child games and blame shifting need to stop here, work together as adults and resolve the issues at bay..

So, Bob, when I write in support of a politician it's a 'special commission' but when you write in support of a politician it's ..uhhh, objective?

I dont know how you equate a suit where the people who are responsable for a bad building fix it and the taxpayers paying for the building and paying to fix it.i want the "child games" to end also and think taking it out of the political arena and having people who are dedicated to evaluating and resolving the problem and thatproblem alone.I question the judgment of people who literally screamed at a public meeting there is nothing wrong with the building. in the Engeneer report is uses the word inadequite 8 times in a 16 page report.We paid for a report and dont listen to it. Do you know of any other way to determine setteling other than controll points.That is what they taught us in Syracuse. In my opinion Edsall's judgmant is effected by the fact that his brother in law built the building'Vatter has his business in a building owned by the same contractor. I beleive this effects his judgement.Cane is a lawyer for pet estates thats rite a dog lawer hardly qualified to evaluate engeneering reports. Not that he can't learn. It is just that his formal education that you touted leaves him unprepared for this situation.Regarding money being spent I would love to talk about the $250 in Pepsi, the $1800 in shrubs and $2500 in un budgeted items some paid for without competitive quotes or vouchers signed by the board. There goes our tax money.Its one thing if pepsi or shrubbs are in the budget but they arent.So why have a budget that gets voted on.

...because I just can't let it go.. Luckily , I am blessed with friends who tell me when I am being an idiot.. Apparently I misread Bob's post, and responded accordingly. I still don't agree with him, but I apologize for not paying attention. (It made perfect sense in what my friend refers to as 'Kate-world') Carry on...

For the record, I am an attorney that concentrates in wills, trusts and estate planning. I was formally an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, as well as an attorney for the MTA IG and a gubernatorial commission. While many of my clients have pets, none of them have asked me to provide for them in their estate plan. If any of the pets ask me to be included in their owner's estate plan, I will be sure to come back and correct the record.

Ok jim sorry about that this info I have must be wrong.Pomona, NY ?V September 22, 2008: If you have pets and wonder what would happen to them
if something happened to you, then this seminar is not to be missed. Very often people
presume that their family or friends will want to care for a beloved pet if something happened
to the pet??s primary care giver ?K we can tell you from experience that is not always the case.
If you want to take control of what happens to your pet in the event you are incapacitated, or
suffer an unexpected disability or die, then please join us. The seminar is free and without
solicitation. The seminar will take place in the ??main house?? at the Tolstoy Foundation, 104
Lake Road, Valley Cottage on Tuesday, September 30 at 7pm and refreshments will be served.
Expert panel speakers include:
?X Raymond Mundy - Hudson Valley Humane Society president will direct the discussion
and focus on the nuances related to animals.
?X James P. Kane, Esq. ?V Brown, Brown & Kane, LLP ?V Mr. Kane will be present to explain
the appropriate legal documents and how they must be structured.
?X A financial planner will also be in attendance to outline the various tools available for
this purpose Mabe you should talk to them.