Having spent about 10 years as the treasurer of a volunteer organization, from which I resigned a couple of years ago when spending got seriously out of control, I have seen firsthand how the voting to spend Other People's Money becomes a game using Monopoly money. "I'll see your $10,000 and raise you another $50,000..." What really brings it home is when I realize that the Village's portion of the $15,500 in taxes my wife and I paid for 2010 is about to go straight down the toilet, since it will go to pay just one-tenth of Tarshis Etcetera's legal bills. Sad.

It's prophetic that my above-mentioned resignation also was brought about by legal bills: the organization had voted to pay a five-figure bill--with more to come--to a lawyer in an Upstate city who was billing us $240 an hour--as I remember--to sit in his sedan and listen to country music for five hours while driving from his office to Cornwall, and another $240 x 5 to drive home again. (Apparently there are no lawyers in Cornwall, or even Orange County...)

Cornwall-on-Hudson may end up bankrupt, and I'm sorry to see that my former organization is now also essentially out of money, having spent even the $30,000 that a longtime local resident left to the organization in her will, which I urged be invested in a safe money-market instrument to spin off say five percent a year to fund a CCHS scholarship in perpetuity. Sorry, it's gone.

I am not up on all the ins and outs of this situation but I have to say that when I vote for representatives my number ONE priority is FISCAL responsibility. Our tax money is there for the wise and effective use for things like DPW, Fire, Police, etc. It disgusts me that this board and mayor (I don't care about who is to blame and who isn't) cannot get their collective act together to resolve this dispute without WASTING our tax dollars on exhorbitant legal fees. For WHAT????

If necessary - there should be a clear delineation of the issues laid out before the people and LET US VOTE on how to resolve this and who should have the control over selection of the Village attorney.

PLEASE STOP WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS and TIME!!!! <grrrrr>

Why did the three trustees fire a law firm that had not an ounce of conflicts with the village and turn around and underhandedly went out on their own and hired a law firm that had a conflict of interest? Why didn't the three trustees come up with a law firm that everyone could agree on? I believe most of us voted for a Mayor and board that could get a handle on cost and for the most part they were doing their job until this year when all hell broke loose. May you have forgotten but the board works for us and not for your own ego or special causes.
If you need money to pay your lawyer take it out of your pockets! then maybe you would spend our money a wiser
ENOUGH!
j buescher

I agree with Trustee Gosda's point of view on how this unfolded. Yes, there are untold parts of this saga but this a a fair assessment of the situation as it currently stands.

Some wish to ONLY blame the Mayor. Fair enough, but a board is comprised of many members with equal voting power. If the BOARD MAJORITY unilaterally decided to fire a good law firm, hire a new law firm, not negotiate a rate....... then they are the responsible parties and need to be held more accountable then the Mayor. (please take notes on this point for those that do not understand the process)The big 3 need to answer to the public as to why it was so important to railroad the Mayor and force their agenda on the village. It doesn't appear that they have done anything that deserves praise or a pat on the back.... just the opposite.

My only point to make at Trustee Gosda is this....... just because it wasn't your idea does not mean you get to ignore the fact that it happened. You were elected to do a job. Your idea was voted down and a new idea was voted in. Now get to work on fixing the NEW IDEA regardless of who had the idea in the first place.

And to everyone else on that board, WORK TOGETHER!!!

Not too mention the Law firm in question is a local firm with local people. I am surprised that they would use a lack of retainer to stick it to a local municipality. (Although they are lawyers, so why should I really be shocked??)

Any chance of making a new village rule that multiple members, like 3 or 4, must be present if anyone on the board needs legal services.

It would serve as a check and balance rather than individual members deciding on their own to seek legal advice on behalf of a village. (How stupid of a structure is that anyway? You could have 5 board memebers calling the lawyer about the same item 5 different times.) How about the elected officials get together, make a list of what needs to be addressed, and then contact the lawyer, thus eliminating wasted time and resources?

I mean, how unprofessional and disorganized can one group be? Unless actions have been taken in hast to cover up something larger.

Thanks Barbara for hard numbers ... they help. How are the comments here so different from those made on John Chase's letter about the Mayors right to legal counsel?

Seems like the chocolate ration was raised from 4 g to 2 g.