Out of Step

In the midst of his failed reelection campaign, then-Mayor Jesse Warren attempted to publicly shame his Southampton Village Board colleagues into agreeing to end benefits for life for board members who serve five years or more. In response, and in consideration of a desire to double term lengths for themselves, the village trustees agreed in May to spend $5,000 of taxpayer money on a study of trustee and mayoral salaries, benefits, and terms of office.

The trustees had expressed at the time that they were not necessarily opposed to ending benefits for life, but that the matter required more study and a holistic look at Village Board member compensation and terms.

When Patti Dwyer of Sourced Municipal Solutions presented the results of that study in September — to a Village Board now led by Mayor Bill Manger — the board learned that having four-year terms would put Southampton Village out of step with the majority of similar villages in Suffolk, Nassau and Westchester counties. The survey found that 63.6 percent of the 55 responding villages have two-year terms for the mayor’s office, 3.6 percent have three-year terms, and 32.7 percent have four-year terms. Responses for trustee term lengths were very similar.

But what was more interesting about the survey findings was how out of step Southampton Village is when it comes to providing health insurance benefits to current and former board members. Only 47.3 percent of villages that responded to the survey — again, on all of Long Island, and in Westchester County — allow currently serving members to opt into a village’s health insurance plan. Even fewer, 21.8 percent, or 12, pay 100 percent of the health insurance premium cost, as Southampton Village does. Nine villages require trustees and mayors to pay at least something toward their premiums. Five require trustees and mayors to pay 100 percent of the premiums. In 65.5 percent of responding villages, former mayors and trustees cannot participate in the village’s insurance plan at all.

Dwyer said not requiring contributions to health insurance is “predominantly an opposing value” among survey participants. She said the same of having a vesting period of just five years and of allowing health plan participation by officials after leaving the board. “Theoretically, someone can leave the board at any age, provided they have five years of service, and they can participate in your health plan at no cost,” Dwyer told the board.

Moreover, she called two-year terms for Village Board members “predominantly an aligned value” — meaning, that’s what is typical in other villages.

With findings like these, the next logical move for the Southampton Village Board was to roll back its overly generous benefits package. In fact, now that more study was done and a holistic view was available, it should have been a priority.

What has this Village Board done instead? It planned a public hearing for Thursday, November 9 — on a local law to double term lengths.

There was nothing about the village’s health insurance policies. Dwyer recommended longer vesting periods and for current and former trustees and mayors to kick in at least something toward their premiums. Yet the survey — which the trustees and Manger said was necessary before they made any decisions — is being ignored.

The Village Board appears to hope village residents just weren’t paying attention to this whole episode. Double term lengths, no matter what the taxpayer-funded survey says. Keep their benefits for life, no matter what the taxpayer funded-survey says.

Might this Village Board intend to curtail its benefits soon, and just hasn’t taken up the issue yet? Perhaps. But the trustees certainly haven’t spoken about that publicly; forgive us if we are hesitant to give them the benefit of the doubt. Manger signed a pledge prior to June’s election saying he personally would refuse his five-year vesting, but the trustees have made no such pledge.

With the survey in hand, ending free benefits for life obviously should have come up for discussion before any attempt to double term lengths. And holding a public hearing on the latter proposal two weeks before Thanksgiving in a summer town is not an appropriate or accurate way to take the pulse of the community.

The fact is, village residents are not calling for less frequent elections. This has been attempted more than once in the past, and the idea went over like a lead balloon. Allowing residents to petition to overturn the decision, if they collect enough signatures, in no way makes up for this serious misstep.

Now that a study is complete, it’s time for a serious conversation about whether Southampton Village wants to continue rewarding its elected officials so handsomely — while doubling the amount of time its residents have to wait before they can have a say about them at the polls. The village would be a significant outlier in both instances.

The board is about to find out whether either is on a list of the village’s top issues in need of action. Expect them to hear the answer, loudly. Let’s see if they listen.