Letters

I read the article [“Southampton Village Trustee Robin Brown Cleared in Ethics Case by Independent Expert,” 27east.com, June 4] and attended the trustees and mayoral debates hosted by The Press on Friday. These events caused me to question the relationship between some members of the current Village Board and the committees it appoints. Importantly, are village committees expected to be independent decision-making bodies or proxies for the Village Board?

I learned that allegations of ethical breaches were levied against Trustee Brown, and that the five-member Southampton Village Ethics Board, a number of whom were appointed by the current mayor and trustees, found that Trustee Brown violated the village ethics code.

The ethics committee came to its decision after investigating the matter and seeking advice of counsel. Nonetheless, the mayor and some trustees decided to retain another attorney at a cost of over $6,000 to village residents to reevaluate the decision of the ethics committee.

The Press reported that Mayor Bill Manger said the ethics committee decision “did not seem to give an explanation, so it didn’t seem like it was complete.”

The Press also reported that the village attorney, who normally advises the ethics committee, recused herself, citing a conflict of interest. However, that alleged conflict did not stop her from openly critiquing the ethics committee’s decision in The Press, which, according to Mayor Manger at the debate, was supported by an attorney’s opinion.

The second consultant retained by the Village Board found no ethics violation. The Press reported that the ethics committee chair said the information presented to it differed from information presented to the second consultant. Impliedly, that’s the reason for the different opinions.

At the debate, it was stated that the ethics committee reviewed this second opinion and still upheld its decision that an ethics violation, indeed, had occurred. If so, I applaud the committee’s courage and integrity to stand behind its decision.

Trustee Brown rightfully can pay for her own opinion and disseminate it. However, the Village Board should have shown its ethics committee respect. It might have asked the committee for a more “complete” explanation. The mayor and certain trustees should not have retained a second opinion; the cost is born by village taxpayers. By doing so, the Village Board undermined the ethics committee. In fact, the attorney retained by the Village Board questioned the “propriety of the [Village] Board seeking — and paying for — an outside legal opinion after a ruling by its own Ethics Board.”

Village residents are left to wonder if village committees can ever feel free to render independently the decisions that they are appointed to make. These recent actions cast a chill on effective, cost-efficient village governance. 

Valerie Acerra

Southampton