Letters

The recent coverage by The Southampton Press of the Southampton Village administrator, Anthony Carter, operating without a contract [“Southampton Village Administrator Still Working Without a Contract as Village Awaits Word on Waiver Request,” 27east.com, March 20] exposes a troubling series of decisions that betray a fundamental disregard for fiscal responsibility and ethical government.

Unlike Mr. Carter’s predecessors, who effectively managed the roles of administrator, clerk and treasurer, Carter solely occupies the administrator position. Yet his $165,000 salary mirrors that of his multi-role predecessors.

This situation grows even more indefensible with the potential addition of a six-figure state pension through a 211 waiver, a mechanism intended to allow an individual to collect a pension while earning a salary, assuming no other qualified candidates are available. The waiver, signed by Bill Manger, includes his false claim of Mr. Carter’s unparalleled suitability. Furthermore, it promises to unjustly enrich Mr. Carter at taxpayers’ expense, beyond the compensation of his more versatile predecessors.

The manipulation doesn’t end there. The claim, facilitated by Bill Manger, that Mr. Carter is the only individual in New York State capable of handling this job is ludicrous. It’s a disservice to the pool of qualified professionals within and beyond Southampton Village. It’s a misleading assertion that questions the integrity of the local government’s decision-making.

Diluting job requirements to accommodate Mr. Carter, at a time when fiscal prudence is paramount, contradicts any semblance of responsible management. Hiring additional staff to perform duties historically managed by a single individual, at an added cost of over $200,000 per year, plus benefits, is nothing short of scandalous.

Why such lengths to overcompensate an individual clearly not suited for the job? This isn’t just about Mr. Carter’s qualifications or the legality of a 211 waiver; it’s about a disturbing pattern of preferential treatment, potentially motivated by political alliances or back-door promises.

This saga demands more than casual scrutiny. It calls for a rigorous, open investigation into the dealings of Mr. Manger and any others, like Gina Arresta, involved in this charade. The residents of Southampton Village are owed transparency, accountability and a commitment to governance that places public interest above personal or political gain.

The actions uncovered by The Southampton Press are not just concerning — they are an affront to the principles of good government. We deserve better, we demand better, and we should settle for nothing less.

David Rung

Southampton Village