We Mark Our Ballot: Southampton Village

A village election should be a celebration of democracy at the most local level, where candidates essentially share a backyard and all want the best for their neighbors, and engage in friendly debates about how to do that. It never should be an ordeal that residents feel like they have to endure, looking forward to its end so that street sweepers can clear its memory away.

Southampton Village got the latter this year in its mayoral race. Fingers point both ways — “He started it” — and both camps have deployed attack ads, whisper campaigns and worse, nudged on by supporters. Outside groups are spending money to raise the level of vitriol and turn this small-town campaign into some kind of no-holds-barred political battleground worthy of Lee Atwater or Roger Stone.

Here’s the simple truth: There are two candidates for mayor. Both have shown competence in the role. Both are good men. Neither is a patsy or a puppet. Village voters have a choice, and most made up their minds well before the shenanigans started. Whatever they decide, the village will be fine.

It’s time to turn down the volume a little and bring civility back to “village politics,” a silly term to begin with. End the politics. Focus on the village instead.

Incumbent Mayor Jesse Warren is a study in perspectives. From one angle, a few things can be said that are hard to challenge. His youth is an asset, and his energy has been remarkable. His leadership during the pandemic far exceeded what might be expected of a first-term mayor, and it should be appreciated by all village residents. His work on Lake Agawam has been outstanding. He has a penchant to think big, and to work toward ambitious goals with confidence.

Turn slightly, and he appears to embody Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s motto, “Move fast and break things.” That might work for a social media start-up, but it’s disorienting in village government. He seems at times to disregard the impact of his actions on people’s lives, has been openly hostile and disrespectful to colleagues, and seems to see the mayor’s office as at the top of an ivory tower, where he rules by edict instead of compromise. It’s hard not to see ambition in Mr. Warren’s eyes: He has qualities that have captivated many village residents, and that could be put to other uses.

But it is impossible to ignore the red flags. Mayor Warren spins financial figures like tops, and the intent often obliterates the facts. His handling of the police department — an agency that deserves closer scrutiny — has been atrocious, the relationship probably irreparable. The village spent $40,000 on the Hartnett Report, which provided genuine insights, but he spun it instead as an indictment of the department and its chief. That’s clearly what he wanted out of it, and he stubbornly pitched it as such — until Mr. Hartnett himself had to step forward and object.

Mr. Warren cleared out Village Hall and installed “better” employees, mostly his supporters. He’s on his fourth village attorney in two years; one resigned via a letter that hinted strongly at wanting to get as far away from potential trouble as possible. His eagerness to register new voters in village elections is an ethical tightrope walk.

Jesse Warren has done some terrific things in the end. But the ends do not justify the means.

Michael Irving, on the other hand, was a nondescript mayor in his lone two-year term — his successes were modest, and his public image couldn’t have been more low-key. It’s difficult to point to anything in his first term to rival Mr. Warren’s record.

It was night and day. But at this moment in time, it’s appealing, perhaps just because he didn’t believe sweeping change was necessary all the time. Juggling hand grenades can be thrilling, but it’s exhausting to watch — and sometimes hazardous to be near.

Mr. Warren has pitched this election as a choice between moving forward and looking backward. That’s fair. Should he win a second term, it will continue to be fascinating to watch Jesse Warren reinvent the job of mayor, move fast, break more things.

It’s not necessarily regressive to just take a tiny step back from the chaos — and in choosing Michael Irving, it’s a less-than-enthusiastic call to let the village catch its breath. Still, there are real tasks at hand, including a sewer project and a reconsideration of the village’s approach to development: Mr. Irving will need to step up and deliver.

For trustee, the four candidates deserve credit for stepping into the fray and, generally, running a campaign devoid of rancor. Mark Parash has been an excellent trustee who deserves reelection. For the second seat, it might be prudent for Andrew Pilaro to be reelected to continue to team with Mr. Parash as a check on the mayor’s office if Mr. Warren is reelected, but Roy Stevenson, who comes from the village’s regulatory infrastructure, is a stronger asset at a time when development rules must be rewritten.

Robin Brown is a welcome addition to the conversation; here’s hoping she gets an opportunity to use her many talents in some role in village government and returns in the future with a dash of experience.