Southampton Village Board Debates Lifelong Benefits for Trustees and Mayors; Board Votes, 4-1, To Remove Attorney From Ethics Board Post

A failed proposal to eliminate the right of trustees and mayors who serve more than five years to earn health benefits for life upon turning 55, and the removal of attorney Steven Leventhal from his post as special counsel to the Ethics Board, were hotly debated topics at the Southampton Village Board work session on Tuesday night, April 25.

Mayor Jesse Warren added the resolution to the agenda to revoke the right to medical and dental benefits for life for currently serving and future Village Board members, while allowing former trustees and mayors who had already earned that right to be grandfathered in and continue to keep those benefits.

Warren expressed his view that elected officials should not collect benefits for life and pointed out that the Village of Westhampton Beach had recently eliminated that right for elected officials, applauding it as the right thing to do.

“I would argue that we are public servants and our job is to volunteer our time, but, when we retire, to be taking benefits from the village doesn’t make much sense,” he said.

He said it would be a cost-saving move for village taxpayers, pointing out that a family health insurance plan can cost around $40,000 per year.

Warren did not receive support from the four trustees seated to his right and left, and the resolution went nowhere. After the four trustees made it clear they did not support the resolution, Warren did not make a motion to approve it, and none of the trustees made a motion to table it for later consideration.

Several trustees said that while they did not necessarily disagree with the idea of eliminating health benefits for life for trustees and mayors, they objected to the fact that Warren included it as a resolution on the agenda without discussing his intentions to do so with them first and without awaiting further analysis and input from two committees that have been tasked with providing recommendations on the issue, as well as other matters pertaining to Village Board members, such as term limits.

“The Planning Commission is still working on this as a package to consider compensation, benefits and term limits, and the Budget and Finance Committee is also working on the same thing as far as budget is concerned,” Deputy Mayor Gina Arresta pointed out. “So I’d like to wait for their presentations.”

Trustees Roy Stevenson and Robin Brown said they agreed with Arresta, while Trustee Bill Manger did not weigh in on the issue.

Arresta accused Warren of being politically motivated in including the resolution on the agenda. Warren is up for reelection in June, and Manger recently declared he would run against Warren for mayor.

After some back and forth between Warren and Stevenson and Arresta, Trustee Robin Brown weighed in.

“It’s a good request, it’s a fair request and it’s a transparent request,” she said. “And I think you’re making people feel pressured, and that’s not the way to conduct something.”

The board moved on after that but found itself in another debate shortly after on a resolution to rescind the appointment of Leventhal as counsel to the Ethics Board, which was later approved, 4-1, with the mayor dissenting.

Manger said the board was seeking to remove him from that post because Leventhal’s firm, Leventhal, Mullaney & Blinkoff LLP, also serves as counsel to the village’s Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Budget and Finance Committee recently recommended that, to avoid any conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, no outside counsel or firm should represent more than one village board or committee. He also said the village code, as it’s currently written, states that the village attorney should serve as the attorney for the Ethics Board.

Warren strongly objected to the removal of Leventhal from that post, pointing out that Leventhal was hired under the administration of Mayor Michael Irving, his predecessor. Warren called Leventhal a bipartisan choice and touted Leventhal’s resume and reputation as a top ethics attorney as reasons why he should remain in the role.

As Arresta had done earlier in the meeting, Warren accused the trustees of being politically motivated in seeking to remove Leventhal from his post.

“My question is, why would this board choose to fire Steve, a premier ethics attorney on Long Island — and worse, why do this before this election?” he said. “And why is it so important to do this right now? These are questions that every resident should be asking themselves. I can’t speak to their intentions, but it’s worthy of further scrutiny beyond the publicly stated reasons tonight.”

On this issue, Manger did weigh in, and did so vigorously.

“I don’t understand why there is such an objection to trying to streamline the attorneys in the village,” Manger said. “You know we have huge charges on the taxpayer for the attorney bills, and [Village Administrator Charlene Kagel-Betts] told me today we’re going to have to move more money at the next meeting.

“We can’t keep dipping into taxpayer dollars for attorney bills,” he continued, banging his fist on the table.

Warren said Manger’s argument was not valid, because Village Attorney Andrew Preston would charge essentially the same rate per hour as Leventhal’s firm. Stevenson then called Warren to task for going through five village attorneys in four years, an assertion Warren began to defend or dispute before Stevenson continued, saying “there have been five attorneys in four years, mayor. That’s a fact. You can’t run away from facts, Jesse.”

Warren said on Wednesday that the trustees’ contention that the village code says the village attorney must be counsel to the Ethics Board is incorrect. The village code states, “The Board of Ethics shall have the confidential advice of legal counsel employed by the Village Board of Trustees or, if none, the village attorney, and the services of a confidential secretary employed by the village.”

Warren said that means the village attorney only serves as counsel to the Ethics Board if the Village Board has not employed another attorney to fill that role.