A federal probe into Albany corruption has reached yet closer to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. A report this week from the International Business Times says that his administration has confirmed it is being investigated over ties between the state and Mr. Cuomo’s top campaign donor. This is the first time the ongoing examination into state graft has reached the governor’s office. Up to now, all the action has been at the State Legislature, with several elected officials under indictment, including former Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, Dean Skelos, the former Senate majority leader, and Mr. Skelos’s son.

Mr. Cuomo has not been implicated in wrongdoing. However, his office refused the publication’s Freedom of Information Law request for documents related to transactions between Glenwood Management and the state, citing — improperly, as we see it — a blanket exemption for documents involved in a law enforcement investigation. In doing so, Mr. Cuomo’s aides said that the administration was indeed a target of United States Attorney Preet Bharara, which had been suspected.

As has been Mr. Cuomo’s tendency toward dubious interpretations of the law, he is wrong on this as well. The right to withhold public records in a case like this was intended to allow police and other official investigators latitude to do their work; it was not intended to stymie the work of the news media or block interested citizens from knowing about the function of their governments. Notably, Robert Freeman, who runs the New York State Committee on Open Government, called the Cuomo position “ridiculous and contrary to the intent of the Freedom of Information Law.”

This is not surprising, coming from a governor who infamously shut down the Moreland Commission anticorruption effort, declaring that because he had set it up, he had the right to pull the plug. Maybe Mr. Cuomo believes all this, but New Yorkers should not.

A bill introduced recently in the New York State Legislature by Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. to deal with the enduring problem of too little available housing for the region’s work force has a worthy goal. However, it may not be quite ambitious enough. The housing crunch is acute and getting worse. There are just too few reasonably priced, safe rentals to go around. Workers often crowd into illegal group houses, which can have a negative effect on neighborhoods and in some areas cause septic contamination of groundwater, among other effects. People are forced to move away, not because jobs are scarce, but because there is nowhere for them to live, and it is only getting worse.

Several factors have contributed to the lack of starter or lower-end housing, including the conversion of second-floor apartments in commercial districts to office space and the rise of online services like Airbnb, which facilitate short-term rentals at high prices and deplete the availability of year-round residences.

Mr. Thiele’s bill would fund zero-interest loans with a maximum of $250,000 to help those who earn up to 120 percent of the median income, or about $130,000 today, to buy houses. It also would provide money to prod the towns to protect existing work force housing by buying easements and through other means. The fund would be created from a residential construction fee of $10 per square foot, exempting the first 3,000 square feet of floor area. The legislation, like the community preservation fund before it, was designed for the five East End towns and residents in each would have to authorize the creation of respective housing programs in a ballot referendum.

There may be wide support for the idea. In a report delivered to the East Hampton Town Board last year, an official committee recommended the expansion of existing efforts. This might include new zoning rules to allow multifamily residences, subject to income caps, as well as seasonal “dormitories” for some workers. Such changes are necessary, the committee said, because the incentive programs already in the town code have failed to work. Hundreds of names remain on waiting lists for housing, and few new units have been created in the private sector.

One concept floated by the committee is an additional real estate transfer tax, similar to the 2-percent preservation fund levy, to pay for affordable housing. This might be difficult to win support for on the ballot. Instead, an alternative could be reducing the C.P.F. tax by half a percent and creating a new, separate fund specifically dedicated to housing. Combined with Mr. Thiele’s luxury tax on larger house construction, the two sources of income could go a long way toward putting roofs over the regions’ workers’ heads. It is an idea worth a serious look given the seriousness of the crisis.

Voters can go to their polling places on Tuesday to give their respective school district budgets the thumbs-up or down, though the turnout is not expected to be large. In several places — Sag Harbor, Amagansett, and Montauk — there are contested races for school board positions; in others, the incumbents stand unopposed.

Over all, we sense a degree of satisfaction with the schools, the unexpected opt-out test mess notwithstanding. Complacency may come from a feeling of futility; budgets are sharply constrained by a state cap on tax increases, and curriculum largely set by the Department of Education. Disinterest may also play a role. A larger, consolidated educational system here might well spur board of education races and capture public interest, while providing financial and programmatic advantages. That, however, is not on Tuesday’s ballots.

In East Hampton, we are pleased to see John Ryan Sr. seek to return to the school board. The current group appears in lock-step with the district administration too frequently, reflexively defending its missteps, as in a recent spate of criticism from some Latino students’ parents over pressure they thought had been put on them to get their children to take the disputed Common Core tests. It is also vaguely unsettling that the three incumbents, Christina DeSanti, Liz Pucci, and Deme Minskoff, are seeking to retain their seats as a bloc. That alone might well be an argument in Mr. Ryan’s favor. However, his strong advocacy for a fully realized youth aquatic safely program is well worth voters’ returning him to the board for what would be a seventh term. Our picks are Mr. Ryan, Ms. Minskoff, and Ms. DeSanti.

Montauk’s race for one seat pits Carmine Marino Jr., a newcomer, against Diane Hausman, the school board president. Ms. Hausman has been a Montauk School Board member for 20 years. Mr. Marino is a Montauk fire commissioner who has made an issue of the school board’s need for more openness, a valid point. However, Ms. Hausman earns our endorsement in recognition of her experience and steady hand.

While Springs does not have a contested board position, an important referendum will be on the ballot: whether to use $2 million from a reserve fund for reconfiguring vehicle drop-off areas. We support this with misgiving; the last time the district took on a large project of this type, an unsightly and widely hated blacktop bus parking area was the community’s reward. The board must do better this time if the money is authorized on Tuesday, which it should be.

In Amagansett, the choice is between Mary Lownes, a 13-year incumbent, and Steve Graboski, a newcomer. Ms. Lownes should cruise to re-election.

Sag Harbor’s board race is a lively one, with five in the mix for three seats. Right off the bat, we cannot support Tommy John Schiavoni, who as a board member has opposed video recording of the public comment portion of board meetings for the flimsiest reasons. The other incumbent, Chris Tice, deserves re-election. Stephanie Bitis and James Sanford round out a good slate.

Ballot hours vary by district. A list of times can be found in this issue and on school websites. Whatever you decide and whomever you support, please vote.

Back in 2010, the Economist magazine observed that railways in the United States were the mirror image of those in Europe. Instead, May 12’s Amtrak crash in Philadelphia underscored the differences, which extend to safety and maintenance. Much has been said since the accident about a system known as positive train control that, had it been in place on that line in Philadelphia, might have spared eight lives. Having been on the same rails recently, we can attest to deplorable conditions in some urban stations and poorly maintained and apparently unsafe conditions along the tracks.

Locally, it is frightening to think that the Long Island Rail Road is at least two years away from installing positive train control. In light of the wildly over-capacity passenger loads on the Montauk Branch on holiday weekends, with all seats filled and hundreds of people crammed atop their luggage in the aisles, even a derailment at a relatively low speed could result in almost unimaginable chaos. If an accident happened on a remote section of track, local emergency responders and medical facilities could almost instantly be overwhelmed.

Of course, it comes down to money. It would cost at estimated $10 billion to install positive train control on all of the country’s railways. Congress set 2015 as a deadline to do so but came up with only about $250 million toward that goal, according to Newsday. Now, some Washington legislators want to delay implementation until 2020. There is also resistance from freight companies, which would bear much of the cost and whose trains run at speeds that would make the system appear less than essential.

The United States’ infrastructure deficit, unlike the rest of the developed world’s, is not limited to train travel. A ride on any of this region’s highways should dispel any lingering doubt. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the U.S. a cumulative grade of D-plus for its roads, bridges, rails, dams, and other essentials, with an estimated $3.6 trillion as necessary to bring it all up to par. And putting off repairs only adds to the cost, as any homeowner can tell you.

The sooner Congress gets serious about infrastructure the better. Delays are deadly.

On the eve of Memorial Day weekend, when for many of us on the East End distractions and frustrations abound, we would do well to think of those for whom the holiday was intended — the many servicemen and women lost in the country’s armed conflicts. But it should also be a time for thoughts closer to home — of community, culture, and the environment, and what we can do by way of support.

Many service organizations here have dedicated members, but those who are perhaps the most critical, who can touch people at all stages of life, are our emergency medical providers. These are the unsung heroes of our community, who undertake hundreds or more hours of training, then leave jobs or warm beds at a moment’s notice when duty calls. Paid paramedics have been added to the roster of most local fire departments to help meet the ever-increasing number of calls and deal with the worst cases, yet the ordinary volunteers form the backbone of the ambulance companies and associations. Helping them help us can take several forms, including donating to fund-raisers and keeping alert while on the roads to their flashing dash lights and pulling our vehicles over to allow them to pass. More recruits are always welcomed. Just ask.

Helping ambulance squads can mean also being smarter about calls. Too often, volunteers say, people call 911 for minor injuries or when someone else is available to take a patient to the hospital. Measures of a true emergency include threats to life or limb, a sense that a patient’s condition could worsen, and if moving a patient without skilled assistance might cause harm. Lists of symptoms to watch for can be found online, and they include loss of breath or consciousness; sudden dizziness, severe headache, weakness, or change in vision; neck or back injuries, and severe bleeding. When in doubt, call 911, advocates say, but thinking first if a situation is a true emergency is important, especially if another call comes in about a victim in worse shape.

On a lighter note, summer here means that all our cultural institutions open their doors. These include charming, little known places, for example, the Eastville Historical Society’s Heritage House, and the heavy hitters, such as the Parrish Art Museum and Guild Hall. Visiting at least one will enrich your season, provide some surprises, and help give the organizations a dose of support.

As to the world around us, the South Fork would surely lose its luster without its soft sand beaches, woodlands, and protected creeks and harbors. Finding time for a walk or two amid the frenzy of friends, barbecues, benefits, and what have you can provide a sense of calm and respite that will last long after the outing is done and the season changes. Consider joining one of the several environmental groups, museums, or trail-hiking clubs. Their modest fees help fund efforts to keep nature at the top of public officials’ minds.

We live in a wonderful place; we really do. As the madness of yet another season-starter looms, think about all the East End has to offer and how you can give back — and get far more in return.

We found ourselves stewing last week about a worsening situation on the Napeague stretch of Montauk Highway as three of four restaurants there, the Lobster Roll, the Clam Bar, and Cyril’s Fish House, grow ever more popular. During Memorial Day weekend, parked vehicles narrowed the roadway, creating unsafe passage for motorists and dangers for pedestrians.

As usual, the tie-ups were the worst at Cyril’s. The stop-and-go traffic extended about a half-mile to the east after staff there illegally cordoned off the road shoulder with more than 100 feet of orange cones to make room for taxicabs. Stuck waiting to get through the chaos, we wondered, if not this, just what would it take for officials to impose some semblance of control?

But it’s not just about what happens on Napeague. Successive generations of East Hampton Town officials have proven unable to tamp down the mayhem from Montauk Point to Wainscott as the summertime crowds descend. As one letter-writer put it last week, over Memorial Day weekend “. . . you may have witnessed a town out of control.” All this raises the question of whether our local government, as configured today, can meet the real-world demands of a 21st-century resort community. As Ken Walles, the author of the aforementioned letter, said, “Town officials need to be strictly held accountable and should not allow the continued misuse of our cherished resource.” And that is being polite.

So the issue is to decide just what effective government for the Town of East Hampton would be. Elements would obviously include more police on the streets as well as ordinance enforcement officers, but it would also have to include a shift in attitude among officials away from what appears to be too much deference to money-making ventures. Those who sit in Town Hall must remember just whom they were elected to represent — and whom they were not.

Such a change in control would come with a cost, of course, but we believe that public support for shifting budget priorities — and perhaps even higher taxes — could be attained if a quieter, saner community was the guaranteed reward.

East Hampton was at one time derisively called the Land of No. It is well past time for some of that get-tough spirit to return

The remarkable thing about the online blowup last week over Uber “ride sharing” service’s decision to stop operating in East Hampton Town is that both Uber and local officials are trying to solve the same problem.

Before you laugh, take a moment to consider that Uber’s phenomenal growth and success have been built on providing an alternative to taxi service, which can be spotty, inadequate, chaotic, overpriced, and unsafe. Town officials, after hearing all manner of complaints from about three years ago on, sought to do something about spotty, inadequate, chaotic, overpriced, and unsafe taxi rides, which were assumed to be the fault of out-of-the-area drivers.

East Hampton’s solution eventually was to require licenses and background checks for drivers and cab companies, as well as a local physical address in order for them to operate. It was the latter requirement that prompted Uber to pull the plug on Friday; neither it nor many of its drivers are based in East Hampton. The town board had assumed that the new requirements would help cut down on complaints if not eliminate them entirely, as well as reports of cabbies sleeping in their cars during the day while taking up parking spaces that would otherwise be used by shoppers.

The defensibility of the town’s residency requirement is uncertain. We can think of no other example of a business blocked from operating here because it is based elsewhere. Contractors such as plumbers, builders, and electricians from UpIsland work in East Hampton every day, subject to town licensing laws. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which the town would — or could — ban them, even if local tradespeople begged for it, the way some local taxi operators asked for help from the town.

A regional solution has been delayed as Suffolk officials try to implement a new law that would require all taxi drivers to have a county-issued license. This seems a step in the right direction. But whether, when the regulation becomes fully functional, Uber would consider its drivers subject to it is questionable; operating in 58 countries and with a market value estimated at $50 billion, it could well choose to fight instead.

Beyond all this, Uber and its competitors have clearly found a market for their services in East Hampton. An Uber spokesman interviewed in a television news report this week said that his company had provided service to 15,000 riders here last year. Town officials should acknowledge that some residents and visitors may want to use these services and for whatever reason avoid traditional cabs. An accommodation, one that does not improperly infringe on the rights of businesses no matter how unfamiliar, should be found.

—

This has been changed to reflect a clarification provided by Uber regarding the number of riders using its service in the Town of East Hampton in 2014.

After years of frustration, open-government advocates in New York State may have reason for optimism. A bill before the Legislature co-sponsored by Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. could revolutionize the way the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Laws are enforced. As things stand now, officials do not face any risk if they do not comply with the laws, and the public and news media have no recourse but to bring expensive lawsuits when information or access is denied. Changes are overdue.

Traditionally, the state’s rules on what the public can know are based on an assumption of openness. However, this has always been open to interpretation, and, since the laws were essentially toothless, with no penalties for noncompliance, the courts were the only alternative. The proposed Integrity in Government Act would change that by giving enforcement powers to the existing New York Committee on Open Government.

It would work like this: The committee would be able to mediate complaints about questionable closed-door meetings and officials’ refusals to provide documents. If that process failed to produce results, the committee could compel the release of records. And, what is most important, the act would for the first time allow fines of up to $1,000 for officials who break the Open Meetings Law by holding improper “executive sessions” or violate Freedom of Information Law requirements by withholding documents or failing to respond in a timely manner.

The chance of being fined, not to overlook publicly embarrassed, for violations of these laws would remind officials, first and foremost, that they are public servants and that the public’s right to know is paramount

Eastern Long Island’s own State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle came out of a closed-door meeting on Monday night to express the Republican conference’s confidence in Dean Skelos following the Senate leader’s arrest on extortion and bribery charges. By one measure, Mr. LaValle was just doing his job as the conference chairman, but by another, his business-as-usual statement is an indication of just how inured to tales of corruption the New York State capital has become.

The allegations against Senator Skelos paint a picture of graft intended to benefit Adam B. Skelos, the senator’s son, though, if convicted, both could serve time in prison. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigation complaint, the men obtained payments from two related companies with an understanding that Senator Skelos would use his position on their behalf.

But Mr. LaValle’s G.O.P. should by no means be singled out. One of the companies named in the complaint is known in Albany for making large campaign contributions to both Republican and Democratic legislators, including Sheldon Silver, the former Democratic Assembly leader, who was arrested in February on fraud and abuse of office charges, leading to his resignation from the powerful speaker’s post. According to federal prosecutors, Mr. Silver, one of the state’s most powerful officials, whose influence was only surpassed by the governor’s, received at least $4 million in kickbacks from real estate developers. In recent campaign filings, Mr. LaValle acknowledged receiving $62,500 in contributions from the companies implicated with Mr. Skelos.

It should not be overlooked that the recent allegations come from matters that had begun to draw attention from the Moreland Commission, an anticorruption probe shut down abruptly by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, apparently as it began to draw near his allies. The United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, has picked up the threads of the commission’s work.

Related and also troubling is that the man who replaced Mr. Silver, Assemblyman Carl E. Heastie, has been implicated in inappropriately enriching himself in the sale of a Bronx apartment that his mother bought using money embezzled from a charity where she had worked. In Mr. Heastie’s case, The New York Times reporters who broke the story said the “carelessness of those involved could be to blame, or something more questionable could have occurred given the Bronx Democratic Party’s influence on the court system and its long history of back-room deal-making.” It is, frankly, surprising that this has not had greater effect. Mr. Heastie has not been charged with any wrongdoing, but the matter calls his fitness to lead the State Assembly, if not continue to be a public servant, into sharp question.

As to Mr. Skelos’s future, Mr. LaValle, according to The Times, said Monday that he should be allowed a “presumption of innocence” and stay on as Senate leader. We disagree. If he is exonerated, Mr. Skelos could seek to return to the post, but while the charges are pending, he should step aside. Mr. LaValle and the Republican conference only bring suspicion and embarrassment upon themselves by refusing to accept the obvious.

After a successful start buying watershed properties around Lake Montauk, the East Hampton Town Board is targeting land around Accabonac Harbor. Using money from the community preservation fund, the board and Department of Land Acquisition and Management have embarked on an ongoing effort to acquire and prevent development of a number of privately owned parcels in Springs that drain toward the harbor.

The importance of this initiative is underscored by a massive fish kill recently in parts of Peconic Bay, which has been attributed to runoff and other man-made causes. Concerns about water quality at Accabonac are not new; its southern reaches are off-limits to shellfishing in all but the winter months.

One aspect of recent town land buys, that some parcels have houses on them, has prompted some argument against acquisition. It is important to remember that in ecologically sensitive areas removing habitable structures is entirely in keeping with the goals of the community preservation fund law. And yes, the extra expense is justifiable and legal as long as the houses are removed.

To the town board, we say, buy them now while you still can.