East Hampton High School has a drug problem. We know this because the administration has scheduled forums at which the use of the life-saving anti-opiate known as Narcan will be explained and kits made available for parents to take home. What we do not know is how big the problem is. School officials have not been forthcoming, saying only that there has been an “uptick” in drug-related incidents. Much more needs to be said.

The best information so far has come from New York State. For the 2014-15 school year, East Hampton reported nine drug events to state officials, up from seven the previous year. 

An uptick, as Adam Fine, the high school principal put it, would appear to mean an increase over those numbers, but by how much and of what sort he did not say. The planned distribution of Narcan, however, suggests that he and others are taking seriously the risk of student overdoses on heroin or related substances, such as prescription painkillers. That is a good thing. But, in interviews, school officials have declined to name any of the drugs they are concerned about, and they have not provided any real numbers. Excuses about students’ privacy are overstated, to put it mildly.

One can sympathize with school administrators. One could understand they would prefer to downplay the use of heroin or other drugs by East Hampton High School students, but no one is served by the lack of candor. A clear and open communitywide discussion would benefit those who need help the most — the kids who are using, or might begin to use, dangerous addictive substances.

After initially denying that anti-gay bullying existed in the East Hampton schools, officials responded with effective programs following David Hernandez’s suicide in 2012. How they openly dealt with that crisis should be a model for the way they confront drug use. But first, leveling with the community about the scale of the issue is critical. 

What does an uptick really mean? The answer should be provided, in detail.

The East Hampton Town Trustees have faced the tensions of going it alone instead of cooperating with a number of other government agencies for a long time. The idea, still in currency among some members and residents, has been that since the trustees were given authority by royal decree in the 17th century, no entity can take it away. In modern times this has meant the trustees have been loath to seek permission from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for projects that otherwise were in its jurisdiction.

Sometimes this has led to awkward situations in which the trustees, needing something from the D.E.C., chose to have someone in Town Hall handle the asking. It also has created puzzling situations, for example, when the D.E.C. bans shellfish harvesting in trustees’ waters and the trustees stay silent and go along. Casual observers would be right to wonder about this contradiction in policy as well as the longstanding initiatives that were delayed because of the one-sided impasse. Since January, however, the new, recently elected trustee majority has taken a decidedly different tack.

The challenges facing the town’s waterways and beaches, many of which the trustees own on behalf of the public, are many and growing, it seems, with every season. Large houses along the shores of some of the town’s most economically productive harbors and creeks bring with them increased septic effluent and, often, landscaping and driveway runoff. Greater residential and transient use add up to increased toxicity and excess nutrients in the watersheds. Climate change and sea level rise as well as new shellfish diseases and forms of predation are increasing too. And unlike only a couple of decades ago, it seems everybody has a four-wheeler and wants to drive on the beaches whenever and wherever they please. It is a lot for the trustees to control.

Times are different now, and no town agency can expect to go it alone. The D.E.C., the Suffolk Department of Health Services, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, for all their well-documented flaws, are a fact of regulatory life. It is necessary for the trustees to work with them more directly — even if the old guard objects. 

Doing something about corruption and influence peddling in Albany appears high on the to-do list for lawmakers — except when it comes to their own bank accounts. 

Following a tough proposal by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo that would hold New York’s legislators to a maximum of 15 percent of their official salaries in outside income, Carl Heastie, the speaker of the Assembly, came up with a far more generous plan, which the Assembly approved on Tuesday. In dollar terms, the governor’s cap on moonlighting money would be $11,925; the Assembly would allow up to about $70,000. In the State Senate, the Republican majority prefers the status quo, in which there is no limit on outside income.

Mr. Heastie proposes allowing up to 40 percent of the annual salary of New York State Supreme Court Justices, whose positions are considered full time, as the limit on outside income. Perhaps aware that his formula might be viewed as bizarre, he announced his plan shortly before 7 p.m. on Friday — hardly the peak of the weekly news cycle.

For how these limits would affect state elected officials one need look no further than Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., who is set to receive $52,500 for his side job as the Sag Harbor Village attorney in 2015-16. Under the Assembly version, he could continue in both jobs, receiving a base of $79,500 as a part-time assemblyman with add-ons available. Should Mr. Cuomo’s plan prevail, however, Mr. Thiele would have a tough choice to make. There is nothing essentially corrupt about having two government positions, and Mr. Thiele has to make ends meet, but choosing one job or the other would eliminate concerns about just which hat he is wearing at any given moment.

 It is clear that from a conflict of interest standpoint ending legislators’ official status as part-timers is essential. Giving up outside income in exchange for higher salaries should be open for discussion even if it costs taxpayers more. Mr. Cuomo’s tight-fisted limit should be the starting point.

One of the recurring themes in the debate about the East Hampton Town registry of rental properties has been that the members of the town board have ignored the views of those who have spoken out against it. Going further, some speakers at town board meetings, as well as other observers, have argued that a show of opponents’ hands should be the determining factor. To do anything else would be tyranny, they say. Well, maybe. But a brief civics reminder should dispel that particular conclusion. 

Government in the United States is based on the organizing principle of representative democracy, which is meant to prevent both despotic leadership and mob rule. This holds true at the federal level and in East Hampton, where town board members sit at the will of the voters and elections are held to give those voters a regularly timed and meaningful opportunity to change course. 

Elected board members need not necessarily be swayed by outspoken crowds. Instead, they are empowered to decide matters based on personal convictions and the best available information. This is why, for example, the Army Corps project in Montauk was not instantly shut down when voices were raised against it and why the town board was likely to look past the protests of rental registry opponents, especially those that were self-serving.

Giving East Hampton Town officials new tools to shut down the illegal hot-mattress business here is in the community’s best interest — precisely what the town board was elected to serve. A show of hands, while valuable to consider, should not in and of itself be the basis of policy.

Since its start, the Y.M.C.A. East Hampton Recenter has never quite seemed to get it right. Now, amid renewed concerns about respiratory ailments some say are caused by an inadequate ventilation system, the time may at last have arrived to get serious about changes.

 The RECenter is an odd hybrid, owned by the Town of East Hampton and yet run by a private organization under contract. Taxpayers contribute about $600,000 annually for its upkeep; Y memberships fund the rest. In some ways, this leaves no one really in charge; not the town board, not the out-of-town Y.M.C.A. bureaucracy.

 Aside from questions about air circulation or lack therof, the RECenter is far less appealing than other facilities in the tristate area, notably, the well-appointed S.Y.S., the Southampton Youth Services Recreation Center. Troubles at the East Hampton site are indicated by its crowded workout area, threadbare sofas that look as if they were frat house rejects, and often filthy floors and shower drains, particularly in the cramped women’s locker room. And then there is the continuing tension about just which user groups the place is supposed to be for: youth, for whom it was originally built, or adults, just there for a workout.

The town recently committed $750,000 for repairs at the RECenter, an indication of the scale of the problems, perhaps. But when all things are tallied, this is just a beginning. An honest conversation among all involved, and the public, is overdue about the facility’s direction, leadership, and, ultimately, if an entirely new approach is needed.

With this edition, The East Hampton Star celebrates its 130th anniversary. Much has changed about the communities The Star covers since its first 500 copies were published on Dec. 26, 1885, but much remains the same.

From the early days, East Hampton has always been an interesting place to live, and, as we say in the newsroom — just report on it and you can’t help but have an interesting newspaper. This isn’t entirely fair, of course. The Star’s success has always depended on the dedication and effort of its staff and contributors, as well as a healthy dose of what we like to call institutional knowledge.

When The Star was established, East Hampton was largely a farming and fishing town, though a rising tide of summer visitors was beginning to put it on the map. Then, as now, obituaries were a key part of the newspaper’s identity. Over time, attention has grown to include police news, balanced by accounts of the good works of townspeople, and by the opinions expressed in letters to the editor. Friction between new and old, and between the environment and the demands people put on it, have become a su/btext to almost every story that makes the front page.

Today, like so many other news organizations, The Star faces continually shifting challenges. Still, the mission of holding up an honest mirror to East Hampton and the surrounding hamlets and villages remains intact, whether its readers get their news from the print edition or in one of The Star’s digital forms. Throughout its history, The Star’s role has been to help the community know itself — and it will continue to be so. We thank you for reading.

For East Hampton Town officials, these are the easy days, but January and February’s quiet pace will soon yield to frenetic spring preparations for the season to come. Then it will be summer 2016, which, if last year’s experience is any guide, will be busier and crazier than before. Despite a public uprising in July in which hundreds of people at an overflowing meeting at the Montauk Firehouse begged the town board to do something, anything, there is much work left to do.

 An unfortunate truth about East Hampton Town policy is that for three busy months, officials have to hustle to keep up with the demands, but then, once September comes around, the pressure dissipates and doing something to head off the next season’s troubles loses urgency.

On the plus side, the town board added additional enforcement power to the coming year’s budget. It banned parking near the Surf Lodge, which has been a perennial source of public frustration in Montauk. And it created a new registration process for property rentals with a goal of improving landlords’ compliance with existing limits. All in all, these are worthwhile measures, but, unfortunately, they do not go far enough toward shifting us back toward the way most residents would like it to be — and we dare say most folks would like it to be clean, quiet, and easy to get around, hardly the way anyone would describe the peak season last year.

East Hampton should not be Party Town U.S.A.; none of the current town board members would say that it is. Still, we cannot escape the notion that a hands-off approach still holds sway. Think for a moment if any of the commercial excesses that draw hundreds of partyers each weekend night between Memorial Day and Labor Day popped up in East Hampton Village; they would be shut down in a second. So what, one might ask, is different about the town? Town officials seem to spend almost as much time making excuses about what they cannot do for one reason or another than about what they actually can accomplish.

After the July outcry, the town tried to get serious, dispatching additional police officers to Montauk for late-night crowd control, for example. And Supervisor Larry Cantwell at the time even mused out loud about phasing out some nightclubs. That was an intriguing idea, but nothing has been heard of it since. It should be resurrected.

Yes, the East Hampton Town Board has a lot to deal with. But no, its members should not get a free pass when it comes to protecting and improving residents’ quality of life. Those who live here, pay taxes here, and love it here must always come first. Controlling the forces that are turning the town into a place few of us find attractive should not be an afterthought, even in the year’s coldest, dimmest months. The time to get busy is now.

East Hampton Town’s planned purchase of the development rights on the 35-acre Whitmores landscaping nursery on Long Lane presents a dilemma. On the one hand, the $3.2 million deal would prevent the site’s ever being turned into a housing development. On the other, it does not appear to do much for the town as a whole, provide public access, or assure the land’s return to crop growing. A hearing on the purchase is scheduled for tonight at 6:30 in Town Hall.

When development rights programs were first created on the East End decades ago, advocates envisioned them as a way to protect farming and scenic vistas. What they did not foresee was the value of the sites for other purposes, be they raising nursery stock, stabling horses, or as annexes to extensive private lawns. What is unarguable is that development rights purchases have kept houses off the land; what is less clear is whether the town and county programs worked as intended. Groups like the Peconic Land Trust have for some time said these programs needed updating — even going back to property owners in some cases to negotiate food-friendlier arrangements.

From what we can tell, Whitmores would continue to use the fenced-in East Hampton site for a retail and wholesale business that puts heavy demands on the soil. After years of use as a nursery, it is likely that major rehabilitation would be needed before food growing might be efficient there. Drawing down the community preservation fund, the source of the $3.2 million, to continue the site’s intensive, commercial use seems shortsighted, and officials should press for additional rights.

Indeed, the wording of the town resolution on the proposed purchase describes it as for agriculture and open space. As things stand, it does not appear that the money would further either goal, even though the state considers tree farming to be agriculture, which would make the purchase legal. Before the town board makes the deal, it might seek some concessions from the sellers to improve the land’s value to the public, perhaps tying it to the nearby trail systems or obtaining assurances that crops might grow there again. The pending purchase becomes even more questionable when you consider that the town’s zoning rules would require an agricultural set-aside of about 70 percent of the land if it were to be subdivided for houses.

In general terms, the development rights approach has to be refigured to ensure that preservation fund money is spent in places of true ecological value or to assure that food production continues. Handouts so that businesses and landowners can pursue non-farming-related activities with the help of public funding should not be tolerated, even if it takes changing state law.

A request from Sag Harbor Village to the East Hampton Town Trustees to discuss ways to manage an all-but-unregulated seasonal anchorage is an example of how demands on the area’s natural resources and infrastructure have outpaced government control.

What prompted Sag Harbor’s request to the town trustees was the expanding presence of private vessels kept on moorings or anchored for a night or two beyond the village breakwater. At present, the village has jurisdiction only within the breakwater, where moorings are strictly regulated and waste pump-out boats are available. 

Beyond the breakwater, things get wooly. According to a member of the Sag Harbor Waterways Committee, as many as 70 boats at a time might be found off Havens Beach and east toward Barcelona Neck. Some have broken loose in storms and washed up, becoming the village’s problem. Others have been known to illegally discharge sewage. Then there is the question of boaters coming ashore in Sag Harbor for shopping, services, and even to dispose of garbage, adding to an already crowded community in the busy months. “We’re getting the brunt of it,” the village harbormaster said. 

State Assemblyman Fred. W. Thiele Jr., whose other paying job is Sag Harbor Village attorney, recently introduced a bill in the State Legislature that would expand the area under village control from the current 1,500 feet from shore. But 1,500 feet is also the distance that East Hampton Town Trustee jurisdiction extends. This means that a cooperative approach is necessary no matter where a new line might be drawn.

Mr. Thiele is in an odd position, particularly since the bill he sponsored on behalf of the village could be seen as a land-grab attempt against the town trustees, whose interests he is also supposed to represent as a member of the Assembly. To avoid questions of an ethical nature, Mr. Thiele should swiftly seek to have his bill withdrawn. 

Meanwhile, Sag Harbor officials and the town trustees are continuing to talk. This is good. The waters beyond the breakwater cannot continue to be a no-man’s land, regardless of which local government asserts authority in the end.

So what gives? Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo says he wants the state to spend $3 billion to redo the gloomy Penn Station in Manhattan, and at the same time he has his hands on the throats of school districts, which are being squeezed by his signature tax cap. 

This year, the tax-levy increase allowed for schools that are unable to win an almost two-thirds majority in a budget vote is .12 percent. This means that for a district like Springs, which is expecting enrollment to continue to climb, getting enough in taxes to adequately educate all of its children will be more difficult. Proposed increases in state aid are not likely to make up the difference. It’s odd, frankly, that Mr. Cuomo would want to be so generous with city commuters while kicking struggling public schools in the shins.

The tax cap is grossly unfair. Town boards and other government entities that do not face public votes on their budgets can easily vote to exceed the annual limit. In East Hampton, just three of the five town board members need agree to go past this year’s .12 percent. For a school tax to rise more than that, it would take 60 percent of those voting to say yes — a very high hurdle indeed.

Fredrick U. Dicker, writing in The New York Post last week, cited an unnamed Albany source that claimed Mr. Cuomo’s leftward posturing — money for transit! — is all about returning to Washington, where he was secretary of housing in the Bill Clinton administration. The calculation is complicated, but would center on Mr. Cuomo’s seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. In the meantime, you would hope he would at least try to improve the public schools. Instead, he has short-changed prekindergarten funding and has hopes for an education tax credit for wealthy parents of private school students.

Critics of the governor’s education policies have pointed out that at a time when the state is enjoying a billion-dollar annual surplus, the tax cap, at least for schools, should be scrapped entirely. But, of course, if Mr. Cuomo is indeed thinking about a run for the White House someday, a tough-on-taxes record might be something he wants to protect. 

It is in many ways good that Mr. Cuomo’s tax-levy cap forces school districts to be wiser with their finances, but it is wrong to have left it at that. With ultimate control over education resting with Albany, more must be done to help either consolidate districts or control costs without impacting students. As things stand, the governor, State Education Department, and Legislature earn a failing grade.