Letters

At the November 9 Southampton Village Board meeting, the administration presented and passed a resolution concerning mayor and trustee salaries and benefits [“Southampton Village Board Abandons Plan To Extend Term Lengths; Salaries Increased and Benefits Curtailed,” 27east.com, November 15]. Note that no prior notice of this action was given to village residents. It first appeared in the agenda posted late on the day before the meeting.

This again demonstrated this administration’s complete lack of respect for the residents of this village who are impacted by these actions. They don’t want any input, and they don’t pay any attention to it when it is provided.

In the resolution, the mayor’s salary was increased from $25,000 to $35,000. Trustee salaries were increased from $15,000 to $20,500. Note: The mayor’s salary in East Hampton and Sag Harbor are $26,000. Trustee salaries in East Hampton and Sag Harbor are $14,000 and $12,000.

These are part-time volunteer positions. Why is it appropriate that Southampton salaries will be in excess of market?

The mayor tried to justify this by saying this administration provides efficient government [“Explaining the Recent Vote,” Viewpoint, Opinion, November 16]. The village budget is $33 million. East Hampton provides all the same services on a $25 million budget. Sag Harbor provides all the same services on a $13 million budget. The mayor must have an unusual definition of efficient.

The administration sets an example of the pursuit of greed. What we need is the pursuit of productivity.

The mayor also said the resolution would result in “yearly cost savings.” The raises and related payroll taxes will cost $34,600. The offsetting contributions to the health care benefits are $5,900. A net cost of $28,700 — not a savings. Either the mayor has trouble with arithmetic or the truth, or both.

The resolution continues the payment of health, dental and vision benefits for current officials, even though the survey indicated that only 47.3 percent of surveyed respondents provided such benefits [“Out of Step,” Editorial, November 9]. The resolution did provide for some contribution toward the health benefits (not dental and vision — why?), but the contribution is limited to 5 percent of village compensation. If they want a limit based on salary, they need to include all their non-village income in the compensation.

The resolution continues the payment of post-service benefits, even though the survey indicated 65.5 percent of survey respondents denied these benefits to former mayors and trustees. In the last election, various candidates vowed to eliminate these benefits.

Also in the last campaign, the mayor vowed to eliminate his post-service benefits, but he has now reneged on that promise.

And who has to pay for this administration’s greed? Because of the travesty that is the village’s assessed value method, the residents of Windward Way and Dale Street will pay a disproportionate share of the increased village tax burden.

David Rung

Southampton Village

Prior to the June election, Manger pledged to waive his five-year vesting period under the old policy, which he did. He never promised to refuse post-service benefits under a revised policy — Ed.