Letters

In this June’s Southampton Village mayoral election, voters will face a choice between two opposite visions on leadership, transparency and fiscal responsibility

On one side, you have the incumbent candidate, who has operated in the dark. Key committee meetings are held behind closed doors, major decisions made without public input, and a governing style that actively shuts residents out of the process.

On the other side, you have a candidate who believes in full transparency, one who would open the doors of Village Hall, involve the public in decisions, and treat residents like partners, not an afterthought.

One candidate borrowed $5.9 million for a project that produced an eyesore solar awning on Jobs Lane, without public consent or input. The other candidate would have put that project on the ballot, giving voters the opportunity to weigh in before permanently changing our downtown and historic district.

One candidate has funneled taxpayer money to his political friends, handing out raises, perks and positions. The other candidate wants to invest in the backbone of the village — its employees — ensuring they’re treated with dignity and respect.

One candidate uses vague, evasive language to dodge accountability and has repeatedly violated the Open Meetings Law. The other offers clear, concrete solutions and has a backbone.

One candidate is trying to enrich himself with taxpayer funded benefits and gave himself a 40 percent raise. The other will rescind those same benefits to help taxpayers and improve the integrity of Village government.

One candidate used public funds to attack to the Ethics Board after his running mate was found in violation of the ethics code. The other candidate was the only official who refused to do so.

One candidate receives questionable votes from “nonresident” absentee ballots. The other is backed by both full-time and part-time residents.

The contrast couldn’t be sharper.

The future of our village is on the ballot.

David Rung

Southampton Village