Letters

As expected, the Southampton Village trustees voted to fire one of the best ethics attorneys on Long Island and the only person in Village Hall who teaches and trains ethics.

Mayor Jesse Warren voted against the resolution in another 4-1 vote. This is hardly a surprise given my experience with Bill Manger, Gina Arresta, Robin Brown and Roy Stevenson. Stevenson was caught building without a site plan review and Brown was photographed red-handed building without a building permit after she voted to increase building department fees. Village or town officials who get caught doing something this egregious usually resign. Instead, this emboldened group fires the ethics expert.

I have long asked the trustees to at least consider changing how Southampton Village determines the assessed value of residences, but they have refused to listen. The ethically challenged trustees will not touch this because the current system benefits their wealthy second-home owner donors in the estate section while penalizing everyday people. During last week’s meeting, the mayor stated that the assessed value issue needed to be investigated.

Returning to the ethics issue. Dane Neller, a member of the Budget and Finance Committee and supporter of Manger, Arresta, Brown and Stevenson, stated that two attorneys from the same firm could not serve on different boards. While this statement is wrong, he did not disclose that his wife is on the ethics board. He also did not disclose that the trustees who enjoy filing ethics charges against the mayor recently filed another charge against the mayor which the ethics board voted 4-1 to reject. Worse, Mr. Neller did not disclose that his wife was the lone vote against the mayor and that his wife got into a heated argument with the now fired ethics attorney. The termination of the ethics attorney appears to be retaliation for his refusal to help convict the mayor.

Also, the ethics attorney may have been aware of potential lobbying by an opponent of a subdivision on Hill Street, which is now in front of the Planning Board. This same opponent of the subdivision is the trustees’ largest financial donor, and has filed an Article 78 proceeding against the village.

Village residents should be appalled by the egregious behavior and self-serving nature of the trustees who also refused to end potential lifetime benefits for themselves at the same meeting. I hope that residents realize that this upcoming election is special. Issues like zoning and traffic are not just on the ballot. Unfortunately, democracy in our precious little village is now on the ballot as well.

David Rung

Southampton Village