By Jesse Warren
On Monday night, December 12, four members of the Southampton Village Board called a special meeting, with minimal notice to the general public or the media, to approve and appoint Southampton Village’s next chief of police.
I voted against this action and was the lone dissenting vote.
I believe our community and the residents of the Village of Southampton deserve an explanation of my reasons for voting against the resolution presented at this meeting.
Since my election as mayor, and subsequent reelection in 2021, I promised change, transparency and a government for the people. Following through and consistent with this promise, the board and I created a process for the selection of a new police chief and an expectation by village residents of transparency in this selection process.
There were a number of important pieces that residents were entitled to expect:
First, the village wanted the negotiation of a fair agreement, which was beneficial to the village, and a compensation package that matched that concept and the caliber of the candidate. This comes on the heels of the former chief of police exiting with a $774,000 payout and an annual total compensation of roughly $441,000 per year.
Second, that the applicant would have taken and passed the Suffolk County Civil Service Exam.
Third, village residents were promised a transparent process featuring open community involvement and public input.
Fourth, that the proposed agreement would be reviewed in detail by community leaders, the Budget and Finance Committee, the Search Committee, and the village attorney.
Finally, that we would strive to hire a candidate with local ties and/or with extraordinary talent through a process that was transparent, openly considered, dignified, and with a sound measure of decency and common courtesy.
Unfortunately, none of those boxes was checked.
1. The four Village Board members awarded an agreement with up to $270,000 of total cash compensation, as well as 26 vacation days, 18 sick days, 13 holidays, and four personal days, for up to a total of 61 days off each year, as well as other benefits.
In awarding such a generous package, the board erroneously tied benefits to those of the village’s highest-ranking union employee, ignoring the fact that she has served the village for almost two and a half decades, and that the police chief is a nonunion position.
It is worth noting: If the candidate receives a Section 211 waiver, he still will be able to collect a $225,000 salary from the village — and also a six-figure pension from New York State.
This agreement was poorly negotiated, as the trustees gave a five-year term to a candidate without the type of in-depth scrutiny that should have been used to fill a position of this magnitude. In the board’s haste to have the agreement approved, it neglected to run it by the mayor’s office, the village attorney, the Police Search Committee, and the Budget and Finance Committee. The deal was negotiated after the job was offered, further limiting the village’s leverage in these negotiations.
Sadly and inexcusably, the appointing resolution, crafted by labor counsel, which the trustees approved and voted on, also was not reviewed by the village attorney, the mayor’s office, and Trustee Robin Brown, the chairwoman of the Search Committee, before submission to the board for the vote. It is even possible that all of the trustees themselves had not reviewed the resolution prior to reading and adopting it.
2. The current candidate did not take or pass the chief’s exam, which was contrary to the prevailing sentiment of the board over the last year, as this was an important requirement. He was, however, awarded a $1,000 signing bonus to prepare for the cost and preparations for the chief’s exam, a luxury that no other candidate was offered; not even our own internal candidates got an allowance to take the exam.
3. The third problem with this process, and probably the most egregious among many, was the lack of transparency and violation of the public trust.
The village put together a Police Chief Search Committee, and that committee was representative of various parts of the community, including Ed Moneypenny, who is a board member of the Southampton History Museum and former CFO of 7-Eleven; Father Mike Vetrano of the Basilica Parish of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary; and the Reverend Donald Butler of the Community Baptist Church of Southampton, a former law enforcement officer in the Village of Hempstead, and who participated in the state-mandated police review process in 2020.
To my disappointment, Rev. Butler resigned after stating that he did not feel included.
Unfortunately, the Search Committee did not receive this candidate’s resume and was therefore unable to provide the trustees with any valuable guidance.
4. Despite a year and a half in the making, and in part waiting on Civil Service test results, the board rushed the final process by calling a special meeting with minimal notice and no indication about the purpose of the meeting. No notice or agenda was posted on the village’s website, which unnecessarily limited public and media access to the meeting, and was perhaps in violation of Article 7, Section 104, of New York State Public Officers law.
The rush and lack of notice puts an exclamation point on the lack of transparency of the process, and disenfranchisement of the public and community.
5. The fact of the matter is that Southampton Village could have had its pick of the highest and most impressive caliber candidates among chiefs of police of the NYPD and with those of diverse backgrounds and experiences. Also available was a high-ranking captain from the New York State Police who oversees the East End of Long Island and who was a former Southampton Village seasonal police officer, as were two candidates from within the Southampton Village Police Department with local knowledge, who have earned the respect of the community and leadership. I would have been satisfied with any of these great choices.
Instead, the board hired a person currently serving as a civilian political appointee in Suffolk County, and who was a former inspector in the NYPD and 25-year veteran of that department, with no ties to the local community, and who is about to take his third job in less than two years. He will be making up to $270,000 per year, including highly generous Southampton taxpayer-funded vacation and fringe benefits, a substantial increase from his $212,006 salary in 2021, according to govsalaries.com. He also will not start immediately but instead will be given three months to study for the chief’s exam.
With the announcement, village residents have been asking: Why this choice, and in this manner? Why the lack of transparency and input? Why the lack of notice? Why the lack of review by the village attorney, the committee, its chair, and the mayor’s office? Why the deviation from the established process and goals, and why the political antics?
The good news, however, is that there is substantial case law stating that future boards are not bound by current ones as it relates to a chief of police contract, and that provisional appointments may never ripen into permanent ones. Because of this, if so inclined, the village residents, its voters, and even this board may have the opportunity at a second bite at the apple.
Jesse Warren is mayor of Southampton Village.
More Posts from Viewpoint
