Yuku free message boards

We Mark Our Ballot, Part II

The atmosphere in Southampton Town suggests that, when it comes to choosing a town supervisor next week, the difficult debate is over: Virtually everyone is either strongly in favor of Republican Linda Kabot serving a second term, or equally convinced that Anna Throne-Holst, the no-affiliation Town Board member who leads the Democratic slate this year, should unseat her. Feelings both for and against each are particularly strong, and there seem to be very few "undecideds" to win over in the final few days of the campaign. What is worrisome is that the strong feelings seem rooted more in emotion than reason, and might mean that this vote, perhaps the most important in the town in many years, will be a referendum on each woman's personality. If so, Ms. Throne-Holst, who is certainly the more charismatic of the two, could well win in a landslide.
Which would be an unfortunate result, because Linda Kabot has earned the right to continue as town supervisor. Moreover, at a critical moment in the town's history, it is essential that Ms. Kabot be given the opportunity to complete the work she has started in righting the listing ship of state.
That's not to suggest that Ms. Throne-Holst is not an excellent public servant-she has served ably as a Town Board member and has been a consensus-builder willing to reach across party lines. She has two years to go in her first term on the board, and she should remain a key player in town government. In a typical year, she might even be the better choice for supervisor.
But this is no typical year, and there is no comparison between the two candidates on the critical issue of the town's fiscal crisis: Ms. Kabot has understood the problem the longest, has taken the most decisive steps to address it, and has the most coherent and responsible plan to resolve it.
Ms. Throne-Holst has repeatedly pointed out that she was the first to call for a forensic audit to get to the bottom of the situation and Ms. Kabot was initially dismissive of the notion. But at the time Ms. Throne-Holst was specifically referring to the waste management and police fund deficits, and while she deserves credit for her attentiveness, it's important to keep the request in perspective.
When it comes to the larger issue-the capital fund deficit, and the Heaney administration's ill-advised strategy of using a perceived windfall from mortgage tax revenue to keep the tax rate artificially low-Ms. Kabot's opposition stretches back into her term as a Town Board member, predating Ms. Throne-Holst's call for an audit. Ms. Kabot must bear some of the responsibility, since she was a voting member of the board when it happened, but the record shows that she was regularly critical of Mr. Heaney's management, and even spearheaded a politically unwise (but, in retrospect, laudable) countermovement to raise taxes to cover increases in spending, and save the "rainy day" fund for a truly rainy day.
Throughout the campaign, and her two-year tenure on the board, Ms. Throne-Holst has made the case that a lack of vision at Town Hall is to blame for many of its woes. Last week, she proudly debuted her impressively titled "Municipal Government Reorganization and Service Provision Improvement Plan," waving it at Thursday's debate as tangible evidence that she has a solid blueprint for the future that has been lacking at Town Hall. But look closely at the plan, and it evaporates. There are a great many wishy-washy verbs scattered throughout the plan-promises to "analyze" and "review" and "assemble" and "develop"-but achingly few specifics.
For example, her plan, as its first priority, would "implement Town Hall departmental reorganization summits," which seems a good long-term idea. But what about the 2010 budget, which is burdened by a fiscal crisis and requires massive cuts, not in the long term but immediately? Her plan cites attrition and, presumably, veteran workers taking early retirement as a way of cutting 20 percent of the workforce by 2012. But it says nothing about how many workers might need to be laid off this year to balance the budget. She has criticized Ms. Kabot's proposal to eliminate 44 positions, says some of those people shouldn't lose their jobs, and has not come close to offering a similar roster of cuts. In fact, she suggests that in some departments more staff is needed, not less.
Ms. Kabot says she would much rather cut six veteran police officers than dozens of town employees (both moves would have a similar fiscal impact). Ms. Throne-Holst, the candidate favored by the town's police union, makes no mention of the police in her plan.
Elsewhere, Ms. Throne-Holst's "plan" chases the always elusive "other revenue" and "grants" and talks about achieving a "structural decrease in [the] size of [the] budget"-but never a word about a single specific cut of services, spending or personnel. Meanwhile, she proposes an ambitious plan to get involved in spearheading school consolidation and shared services among districts, apparently believing that the existing problems at the town level are not sufficiently time-consuming or challenging all on their own.
It's unfair to brutalize Ms. Throne-Holst: She is enthusiastic, committed and intelligent, and her future in town government is bright. In two years, ideally with the challenges of the present overcome, the town might have the luxury of electing a forward-thinking candidate, as she most certainly is. For now, though, the house is on fire. It's not time for an architect; what's needed is a firefighter.
Ms. Kabot has offered a specific blueprint for cleaning up the town's fiscal mess. And she has made it a priority from long before the extent of the problem was even hinted at. Her proposal to do the job with intensive audits, deep spending cuts, and judicious (and temporary) tax increases, rather than borrowing, is sensible and rational.
The town supervisor is flawed. She needs to work on her interpersonal skills, to open up more to input from all sides (including from Ms. Throne-Holst, who would be a terrific partner if Ms. Kabot could get past the politics), to tone down her feistiness, to learn to communicate better. Her recent DWI arrest is troubling, but the facts are still in dispute, and, regardless, it is not a disqualifying mistake.
The bottom line: In the only ways that really matter, Linda Kabot has earned a second term as supervisor. Whether or not the voters agree, whether or not they "like" her, she has performed responsibly and ably, and remains unmistakably the better of two very strong candidates.
When it comes to the two Town Board seats, two strong slates are presented this year by the Republicans and Democrats. The best choices, as it turns out, are one candidate from each party.
Incumbent Republican Chris Nuzzi has been flying well below the radar this campaign season, staying out of the headlines and focusing instead on getting out and talking to constituents. That is characteristic of his style as a Town Board member: He is very much no-nonsense, often inconspicuous, until he speaks up to criticize a proposal with which he disagrees. Party lines seem beside the point to him; in fact, in this race, his positions much more closely align with the Democratic candidate for supervisor, Ms. Throne-Holst, than with his running mate, Ms. Kabot.
His GOP running mate for the board, Jim Malone, is a former Conservative Party chairman and currently an official in the Suffolk County clerk's office who is making his first run for elective office. At last week's debate, he seemed oddly focused on national issues and short on town positions, but his focus is typically much clearer and his command of the town and its situation is impressive.
Sally Pope, the Democratic incumbent, rode a populist wave into office late last year and has had only nine months in office. She is likable, earnest and hard-working, although her reach seems to exceed her grasp in many instances.
Finally, Bridget Fleming, a Sag Harbor attorney recruited to run for the board by Anna Throne-Holst, is a feisty, well-rounded newcomer to local politics, also in her first run for elective office. She assails the "culture of leadership" in Town Hall-meaning the lack thereof, and the failures therein-and has been a quick study on key issues in this year's race.
Ultimately, Mr. Malone comes up a little short as a candidate. He presents himself well and has a polish that bodes well for his future in public service and politics. He has talking points on key issues but doesn't close the deal that he truly can work with other board members to come up with creative solutions.
The hardest call is on Ms. Pope. She's a spark plug who has clearly taken to her new post on the Town Board. It's tough to find fault with her effort. She says she wants a full term to "ask more questions"-but that's not the same thing as getting answers, and taking skillful action in response. While a full term might give her time to tally a few accomplishments, so far her effectiveness as an elected official has been less than promising. Perhaps the choice of Ms. Pope's running mate this year was a mistake, becauseBridgetFlemingshines in exactly the ways that emphasize Ms. Pope's flaws: Ms. Fleming has a command of most issues, is nimble and spirited in defending her positions, and yet remains open to new interpretations. She seems to have all the attributes of a Town Board member who deserves a seat at the table, and a voice in the various debates.
ChrisNuzzican sometimes hit a flat note-his stubbornness when it comes to reducing the size of the town's regulatory boards, for example-but even in that case, he seeks to find the ultimate benefit in the debate (encouraging more professionalism and shorter terms for the board members, both more reasonable notions). He excels in the less glamorous aspects of the job, and he's not afraid to color outside the party lines. All in all, he's regularly in the mix and contributes worthwhile insights, and he deserves another term in office.