Letters

Thank you to the Southampton Village Board, which, at its November 9 meeting, listened to numerous village residents and tabled its resolution to extend future mayor and trustee terms from two to four years.

Village residents do not know if the board will reintroduce the resolution at a later meeting or if it will abandon its resolution.

Some things emerged. It was stated by a representative of the village that the only option for the board to extend the length of the mayor and trustee terms was by permissive resolution. It seemed from that comment that if residents choose to vote to approve or deny a term extension passed by the board, their only option is to file a petition with signatures of 20 percent of village registered voters within just 30 days. Otherwise, the resolution proposed and approved by the trustees is local law.

Consequently, it was suggested by different folks that if this was the only route, and if the board still intends to lengthen future terms of office, the resolution should be reintroduced in late spring or summer, when more residents are here and longer days make it easier to get signatures outside.

However, later during the meeting, former Mayor Jesse Warren asked the village attorney to look at Section 9-908 of the New York State Village Law. Subject to the attorney’s review, he thought it might offer an alternative that would save folks from scrambling to get signatures and still ensure that a matter such as lengthening terms of office was brought to a vote by the village’s registered voters.

Section 9-908 states: “The Board of Trustees may, upon its own motion, cause to be submitted for the approval of qualified electors of such village, an act or resolution of such board in connection with which a petition could be filed as provided in this article [Article 9 – Permissive Referendum] and the proceedings thereunder shall be the same as if such petition had been filed in accordance with the provisions of this article.”

To me, that section allows the board to make a motion to submit its resolution to the vote of registered voters, alleviating the need for residents to scurry for signatures.

If the board ever intends to resurrect its resolution, it might consider utilizing Section 9-908. However, we need clarification from the board after the village attorney reviews the law.

It would be community-minded if the board would post this clarification in the press and visibly on its website. Some of us would learn finer points about village governance and save speaker time at future board meetings, a plus for everyone.

Valerie Acerra

Southampton