In a last-minute attempt to tarnish a Democratic-leaning organization, East Hampton Republicans recently sent a formal protest to the New York State Board of Elections about the East Hampton Conservators, a self-described political action committee founded by the actor Alec Baldwin, among others. While the timing of the complaint may have been part of October’s political warfare, the issue is serious and merits attention.

    The Republican letter to the state accused the Conservators of breaking the law by buying advertisements in this newspaper and others promoting specific candidates. The law requires such organizations as political parties and candidates’ campaign committees, which spend money in support of specific candidates, to comply with more detailed campaign finance reporting than political action committees.

    Nonaffiliated committees like the Conservators may give money to others to buy advertising, for example, but the minute they name a candidate in their own advertising it would appear that they can no longer follow the rules for PACs but the same requirements as traditional committees. In other words, organizations that spend money on behalf of specific candidates must file reports as if they were political committees. After the G.O.P. letter was made public, the Conservators said they would file the necessary paperwork stating their support of specific candidates.

    The complaint and the Conservators’ response raise the question of whether other groups, for example the East Hampton Aviation Association, which bought ad space here and elsewhere thanking Councilman Dominick Stanzione, who was running for re-election to the East Hampton Town Board, might also have had to meet the more stringent campaign finance requirements of political committees. Under the election law, it would appear that these groups, too, would have to do so if they cross the line.

    Without explicit direction from the state, however, it is difficult to say if the aviation association’s thank-you to Mr. Stanzione in the newspapers immediately preceding the election should have triggered these filing requirements. A lack of clarity in the rules makes it tricky to say just which groups should be submitting exactly what. Further guidance from state lawmakers may well be needed.

    The East Hampton Town Trustees’ new lawsuit over a stone sea wall being put in at Georgica Beach is among the most important developing stories to have come along in some time. In it, we may be seeing a glimpse of what is ahead here as sea level rise and erosion pit private interests against the public’s three and a half centuries’ of assurances that the beaches are theirs to use.

    In short form, the dispute is over the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals and appointed officials handing a permit for the sea wall to a property owner whom the village itself had previously fought in court over a similar grab at Georgica Beach. Attorneys hired by the town trustees brought suit last week to block the project — though work got under way, suspiciously, on Monday when public officials had time off for Veterans Day.

    The trustees’ argument centers on the point that the original 1902 deed to the property, which is now owned by Mollie Zweig, describes its southern boundary as the general line of beach grass. Now that the beach grass ends atop a 15-foot bluff, the trustees say, the sea wall and related excavation going on now is actually on the public beach. In a fascinating wrinkle, they say that a precedent from another recent case supporting the beach grass definition of a waterfront property line cements their claim that the project is, in fact, not even in East Hampton Village’s jurisdiction at all, but is on town trustee land.

    Ms. Zweig’s lawyers have yet to file a formal answer, but in previous statements they have said, in error in our view, that because the loss of dune was caused by Hurricane Sandy, the land remains hers. It is an unconvincing position not supported in law, the trustees will counter, and anyway, erosion on that section of beach has been well documented back to the mid-20th century at least.

    In a similar matter, the trustees have taken on the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals over a Mulford Lane project at Lazy Point, for which approval was granted without their consent. As we have said before, the trustees are emerging as the true defenders of the public’s cherished right to go to and enjoy East Hampton’s beaches.

    It is regrettable that different branches of local government are at loggerheads in this way and, as a consequence of trustee authority being illegally ignored, unnecessarily spending taxpayer money on litigation that could have been avoided. From here on out, officials in Village Hall and on Pantigo Road must work harder to include the trustees in deliberating all applicable applications. The trustees have longstanding tradition, and, it appears, the law on their side. The earlier they are fully brought into the process the better.

    With Supervisor-elect Larry Cantwell sitting in the audience last Thursday, the Republican majority on the East Hampton Town Board put on one of its most regrettable performances to date, thumbing a collective nose at all who came before it and leaving yet another stink in the punch bowl for the next administration.

    Hot on the heels of what can be read as a stinging repudiation at the polls in Councilman Dominick Stanzione’s coming in last among four town board candidates, Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley continued their arrogant practice of slipping controversial matters onto the board’s agenda at the very last minute.

    True to form, and front and center of this display of bad government, was the  majority’s decision to schedule a hearing on a zoning change for an Amagansett parcel at the last meeting of the year — the last of the so-called Wilkinson team’s stormy tenure. From the start, observers have had the sense that the 79-unit condominium project known as 555 Amagansett had an inside line to Town Hall. This all but confirms it.

    First, by a 3-2 vote along party lines, the board set a Dec. 19 hearing on an amendment to the town code that would create a new zoning classification for high-density housing for “senior citizens” — those over 55 who are able to pay Hamptons market rates. Then, by the same vote, the board set a second hearing for the same night on applying the new zoning to the Amagansett parcel.

    The proposed law is very strictly worded, making it seem almost impossible to apply to any other parcels in town of similar size. In the fine print, the developer, who apparently had a heavy hand in writing the proposed law, seems to be trying to block would-be competition. This makes it appear to be prohibited “spot zoning” intended to benefit a single applicant, rather than a generous concession on behalf of older residents.

    This second hearing is not only of questionable legality but totally beyond the pale because the zoning category under which 555 Amagansett would be permitted would not yet exist, and could not until some later date after required filing with the state.

    There will be time in the coming weeks to debate the merits of creating the new zone and plunking it down on a single site in Amagansett. But one point should be stressed: Although some real estate brokers would probably receive commissions from sales, the plan benefits its developers most.

    At the same town board meeting in a similarly split, and antagonistic, vote, the board majority set a hearing on downzoning a Cedar Street parcel and eliminating its restrictive farmland protection. The move, if approved, would allow more houses in an already crowded section of the town over neighbors’ loud and repeated protests.

    All of this would be easier to understand if there were any reason to believe Mr. Wilkinson and his allies were taking money under the table for their votes. Indeed, it is all the more distressing to think they would so violate the public will, bend the law, ignore precedent, and override prior town administrations’ work because of half-baked ideology.

    All that a number of recent developers, nightclub owners, and party promoters have had to do, it seems, is utter a few magic words about benefiting the local economy, and the three outgoing Republicans signed on to whatever was presented. It is a shame that this will be the lasting legacy of a group who took office at a time of legitimate anger over the McGintee-era’s financial debacle and perverted their mandate to serve their own ends and those of their few friends and last-lingering supporters.

    Mr. Cantwell and the new and old board members of both parties who will be sworn in come January will have much work to clean up the mess well before they can turn to the agenda on which they campaigned.

    After she had loaded up her car and headed to the Montauk waste transfer station, a woman of our acquaintance was surprised Tuesday morning to discover that it was closed. She was not alone.

    New York is among some eight states that have declared the date a holiday for its employees; many other municipalities followed suit. Any number of people have been flummoxed by the Election Day shutdown of nearly all East Hampton and Southampton Town services, Town Hall, and most public schools, ostensibly to give staff an opportunity to get to their polling places.

    This is nonsense, of course. Polls in New York State open at 6 a.m. and close at 9 p.m. — surely anyone who needed to vote early or late would have an opportunity to do so. This is especially true for many town workers, whose days start around 8 or 9 and begin to taper off around 3 in the afternoon. No, something more must be at play here.

    Not to sound old-fashioned, but there seems to be a tinge of laziness about officialdom taking the day off. At least by South Fork standards, many public employees — and nearly all elected ones — are rather well paid for what they do, and, from our perspective, should be on the job more rather than less. It is a puzzlement that on the one day when communities are supposed to focus on their governance, government chooses to stay home.

    Issues involving the beaches, harbors, and shoreline have gotten more contentious and difficult to navigate, and the sitting East Hampton Town Trustees have risen to meet the new and increasing challenges. With a fresh outlook on the town board beginning in January, there is hope that the trustees will find eager partners.

    Our endorsements for returning sitting trustees to the post go to Diane McNally, Stephanie Talmage Forsberg, Nat Miller, Stephen Lester, Sean McCaffrey, and Tim Bock — whose experience, dedication, and collective record speak volumes. Among the first-time candidates, we support Mike Bottini, Brian Pardini, and Cate Rogers.

    Mr. Bottini is a consummate outdoorsman and an environmental expert. He has credentials as a wildlife biologist, author, as a planner for the Group for the South Fork for 13 years, and he leads excursions on local waters and trails for the South Fork Natural History Museum, among other organizations. His résumé includes five years as a commercial oyster grower. His education, life experience, dedication, and backbone would make him an important addition to the trustees.

    Organized, focused, and smart, Ms. Rogers impressed us with her stated commitment to water quality protection, asserting trustee jurisdiction, assuring public access to beaches and waterways, and opposing “hard” solutions to erosion. As a former town zoning board member, her firsthand knowledge of the other side of local government would be an asset, equally so her support for working more closely with the Planning Department.

    Mr. Pardini has been a professional surveyor for 16 years and is a bayman on the side. He has made a good point about improving outreach to Latino residents who use the bays and beaches alongside long-time residents. As someone with his hand in two of East Hampton’s most time-honored and essential trades, his perspective, as well as his relative youth and energy, would be an asset to the board.

    In a dramatic move supported by the governor and historical precedent, the State of New York is expanding its post-Hurricane Sandy buyout offer to an entire Staten Island neighborhood. Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Monday that all 129 developed properties in an at-risk neighborhood called Ocean Breeze would be eligible, with prices based on their values before the storm. Some 117 owners already have indicated they will say yes.

    The program is remarkable in that residents and government appear to agree that a stand-and-fight approach to the coast will not work in all cases. Speaking on Staten Island on Monday, Governor Cuomo said, “As many communities who want to participate, we have money.” Those with imperiled houses on the East End of Long Island should pay close attention.

    Ocean Breeze is a low-lying community surrounded by salt marsh, but it is not beachfront; it is separated from Lower New York Bay by Father Capodanno Boulevard, a couple of hundred yards of scrub, and a boardwalk before you get to the water. Nor, with an elevation of about 10 feet, is it even in the worst-rated federal flood zone.

    If enough people agree to sell and move on, the roughly four-block area would be restored to nature. The idea is to remove houses from a danger zone and to create an environmental buffer to protect others. It is a smart, aggressive concept, one that meets the increasing threat to coastal development with eyes wide open. It also stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken here when it comes to thinking about hurricanes, northeasters, rising sea level, and the danger to structures too close to the shoreline.

    Money for Ocean Breeze comes not from Congress’s Hurricane Sandy relief, which unfortunately is turning into a slush fund for ill-thought-out undertakings. Instead, the New York Rising Home Buyout Program is funded by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This means that in contrast to the armor-first mentality of the Army Corps of Engineers — and those contractors who stand to make money performing the work — a more pragmatic, long-term approach is possible.

    State Assemblyman Michael Cusick, whose Staten Island district was devastated during Sandy, understands the stakes. In a press release this week, he lauded the program, saying that the region is seeing more frequent extreme weather and that Ocean Breeze is “at risk of getting hit hard again by another storm.”

    Also recently, State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. issued a statement calling attention to the danger. “As we pass the one-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy and pass the two-year anniversary of Hurricanes Irene and Lee, we are reminded of the destruction that was left in the wake of these storms. Storms of this magnitude, which used to be considered ‘once in a lifetime’ occurrences, are happening more and more frequently,” he wrote.

    On the South Fork, where by historical hurricane standards Sandy barely registers, it may be some time before the preponderance of public opinion matches that of residents of the worst ravaged areas. Here, local officials are allowing waterfront residents to expand their houses, which will only increase the cost of any hypothetical buyouts or disaster recovery. At the same time, they are, as in the case of the Dune Road elevation project in Southampton, investing in infrastructure without considering whether it is the right thing to do. At Montauk, current town officials are backing a response to ongoing erosion that seems to date from an earlier era when we understood far less about the forces of nature.

    Unfortunately, when Congress funneled taxpayers’ millions to the Army Corps of Engineers in the wake of Sandy, it all but predestined a retrograde approach. It is up to informed citizens, civic groups, and enlightened elected leaders to recognize that other solutions, perhaps such as proposed for Ocean Breeze, are well worth consideration and may offer the better course for decades to come.

    East Hampton voters on Tuesday had an easy task in choosing among the leading candidates for the town board. With more than 1,000 absentee ballots still to be counted, we expect that the margins between Fred Overton and Kathee Burke-Gonzalez will shift, but that the winners’ column will not. Much as we are sorry not to see Job Potter take a victory lap as the board’s elder statesman, the leadership equation of the group that will be sworn in come January is solid. And necessarily so — the way ahead will be full of challenges, some immediate, some long-term.

    Larry Cantwell, who ran unopposed for supervisor, Mr. Overton, Ms. Burke-Gonzalez, and the incumbents, Sylvia Overby and Peter Van Scoyoc, have much work to do. Dealing with quality-of-life issues and managing growth come first, then must come dealing with sea level rise, helping to provide new affordable housing, improving human services, and protecting the environment — all within a budget limited, at least in theory, by a 2-percent tax-increase cap. The list is long, but these five are up to the task.

    Tuesday’s most dramatic loss, that of Councilman Dominick Stanzione, who placed last among the four town board candidates, is significant. In the campaign’s final days, Mr. Stanzione took to effusively praising Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, after having bucked him in recent months in what was perhaps a last-ditch effort to motivate turnout among the Republican base. This presumed strategy was bound to fail, as even before the election it was apparent voters from all parties strongly supported Mr. Overton’s more traditional brand of East Hampton Republicanism.

    In the two months before the new board takes over, Mr. Stanzione, Mr. Wilkinson, and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley may well be tempted to squeeze out the last drops of their majority on the board to press their agenda and reward supporters and friends. The best thing they could do instead is make a dignified exit, stop their petty squabbling, and mind the helm calmly until January.

    The voters have made it clear which direction they want East Hampton to go.

    East Hampton Town should not seek or accept additional funding from the Federal Aviation Administration until there is agreement on what strings would be attached.

    These conditions, or strings, could be significant. As best we understand it after listening to statements at hundreds of hours of meetings and reading and writing about airport battles for decades, there is a demonstrable, if slight, advantage if the town gets out from under the so-called grant assurances made in earlier deals with the F.A.A.

    After all the talk, it boils down to this: Without grant assurances, the town would have a marginally better chance of success in imposing curfews and other noise-curtailing measures than it would if it continued to take federal money. Take the money, and the town may be committed to negligible control and a more difficult process if it tries to set its own landing and takeoff rules. In either scenario, the law requires any actions the town takes to be “reasonable, non-arbitrary, and not unjustly discriminatory.” And, if a new rule goes into effect as expected, communities that have taken money from the F.A.A. may soon have an even greater hurdle to surmount.

    Pilots en masse appear to support further ties to Washington based on the fear that a future town board could close the airport altogether in the absence of a federal contract to the contrary. Their anxiety has been fanned by special interests, such as the Eastern Region Helicopter Council, which paid for a study that hyped the airport’s contribution to the local economy and further raised the specter of its being shut down. But this narrow view pits neighbors against resident aircraft owners, who are in effect acting as proxies for those who stand to profit from unfettered access — or those very fortunate few who prefer to arrive in their Gulfstreams at whatever hour of the day or night they please.

    Noise-control advocates have been painted unfairly as “airport opponents.” This is a convenient fiction based on the misperception that the Quiet Skies Coalition and others have a secret agenda. Sure, there may be one or two outliers for whom tearing up the tarmac sounds like a good idea, but the majority of residents here and in nearby towns would just like the airport to be less loud and its future growth limited. Unfortunately, by hardening their position, aviation interests may only be increasing the possibility of their own apocalyptic vision as community outrage rises.

    Airport policy cannot be held hostage by those who put profit or personal convenience ahead of the common good. Any measures, no matter how small, that can aid in the fight against noise should be welcomed by all.

    A friend was on a public radio show recently describing the seven things she believes you should never talk about if you don’t want to bore the pants off everyone. We suggest you use these as guidelines for the Thanksgiving table — a do-not-discuss list, or, at least, pointers to help stifle the tryptophan yawns.

    Maria Matthiessen, whose daughter Sarah Koenig once worked at The Star and is now a producer at “This American Life,” listed her conversational taboos for the program. They are: menstruation stories, diet updates, health reports (of a trivial sort), how you slept, your dreams, money, and “route talk,” as Mrs. Matthiessen calls it (that is, those fascinating recountings of how you got from point A to point B).

    If you have not yet heard the episode, which runs about an hour, let us just say that it is a very funny mother-daughter duel and well worth tracking down on the website of Chicago Public Radio, which offers a stream or podcast. In the program, several “This American Life” producers take turns in a contest of sorts in which they try to prove Mrs. Matthiessen wrong by offering up stories on her verboten subjects that they hope are non-boring. Sarah keeps score, and we will not reveal who wins in the end.

    Among a certain N.P.R.-listening set, anyway, Mrs. Matthiessen may have vaulted into an exalted position as not just a new “This American Life” favorite, but a champion of decorum, a bane of dullness, a modern-day Miss Manners. We resolve to try to follow her lead at our own holiday table: We pledge not to bring up the red patch on our calf that may or may not be evidence of Lyme disease, and to leave out how we avoided a bottleneck on Main Street by slipping through the Reutershan parking lot. We promise not to even discuss how we can’t eat the stuffing because of gluten issues, either, because she is right: Nobody cares.

    Rebates for the use of energy-efficient lighting are available, and more residents should know about and take advantage of them. The Long Island Power Authority offers several ways that those buying compact fluorescent or L.E.D. bulbs can save money, including a whole-house, bulk-buy incentive that ends on Dec. 31.

    LIPA and others have been pushing consumers to switch from traditional electricity-hungry incandescent lighting to the more expensive, but power-thrifty alternatives. Compact fluorescents, or C.F.L.s, use only a quarter of the electricity that the old bulbs do, and L.E.D.s less than that. About 90 percent of the energy emitted by regular bulbs is heat — which made the Easy Bake child’s oven possible and safe — but all that electricity has to come from somewhere, notably power plants linked to atmospheric pollution and global warming. The newer bulbs last longer, too, about 3 years for C.F.L.s left on five hours a day and around 15 years for L.E.D.s. You can get only about six months from an incandescent in the same use.

    The one downside of C.F.L.s is their disposal. They contain a small amount of mercury and should not be included in ordinary household trash. Some big-box retailers accept used bulbs for recycling, but for residents of the South Fork, getting to these locations is a bother. As we have urged before, officials should look into reasonable ways to provide safe disposal for them.

    Local retailers taking part in LIPA’s rebate program include the Ace Hardware stores in Montauk, East Hampton, and Sag Harbor, as well as the Revco outlets, and the Riverhead Home Depot. There are online sellers as well, including energyfederation.org/lipa, where you can key in your LIPA account number for instant savings. The new bulbs may take a little attention to figure out and purchase, but making the switch is well worth the effort.