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.

    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.

    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.

    For East Hampton Town Board only one thing is certain: Councilman Dominick Stanzione should not win re-election — and, given his record, it would surprise close observers of the Town Hall scene that he is likely to. Voters are lucky that the three other candidates for the seats open after Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley decided not to run again are among the strongest in years. The tough thing will be deciding among them.

    On policy, the personally likeable Mr. Stanzione’s negatives far overwhelm his positives. He has all but declared war on his own hamlet of Amagansett, backing the Scarsdalization of the South of the Highway lanes from day one and looking favorably on a massive, exclusive luxury housing development for the former Principi property on Montauk Highway. His involvement with the airport has bred controversy, favoring commercial users over the interests of residents. And, for the most part, he has sided with the worst impulses of the outgoing majority, bucking it only on a few issues in a late effort to claim independent thinking.

    The knock on Mr. Overton is that he has been pretty much a ghost town clerk, invisible to those who come to his office and content to let his hired deputy, Carole Brennan, run the show. In fact, as observers have pointed out, it has been Ms. Brennan, as often as not, who has occupied the town clerk’s seat at town board meetings.

    Mr. Overton’s easygoing attitude may be an asset, however, considering the wreckage the current activist town board majority is leaving in its wake. The past four years have caused us to wonder whether the town would be better off if the board met less often; the result might be that it got into less trouble, leaving well enough alone. Mr. Overton is a thoughtful person, and his long public service and community involvement would provide context for many of the decisions that lie ahead. In addition, his perspective as someone outside the pending Democratic majority would be valuable.

    Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, a relatively new face in town politics, has put together an impressive run and strong coalition of supporters. She draws on acknowledged achievements as president of the Springs School Board and has deep friendships in that hamlet and beyond. Her focus on the human side of town government in the campaign has been welcome. In a normal year, hers would be an easy endorsement, that is, if she did not have Job Potter as a seasoned and experienced running mate.

    Mr. Potter has distinguished himself during the campaign as extremely knowledgeable, gently persuasive, and even-keeled. His record on land preservation and environmental questions is solid, and we would expect him to remain a leader in this arena.

    The depth of the candidates’ résumés and a balance of perspectives on the next East Hampton Town Board are what matter. To that end, we endorse Mr. Overton and Mr. Potter. We very much hope that Ms. Burke-Gonzalez will consider another run for town office if she doesn’t prevail on Tuesday.

    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.

    One of the puzzles about the job of town assessor is why the post is an elected one. It is highly specialized and requires considerable breadth of knowledge and extensive training. It would, on review, seem logical to shift it to Civil Service status, with career professionals taking over. In fact, according to the Department of State, only about 12 percent of municipalities in the state continue to have three-member boards of assessors, as in the Town of East Hampton.

    The advantages of opting for a single appointed assessor are many — and convincing. But this is a question for another day; voters are to decide on Tuesday whether to keep the three-term incumbent, Eugene DePasquale, in the role or hand it to his challenger, Joe Bloecker.

    Mr. DePasquale makes a good case for himself both in pointing to his training and certification as well as his willingness to help taxpayers understand what is involved in assessing properties and even how to go about seeking adjustments through the grievance process.

    Mr. Bloecker presents himself as a builder with considerable background in the trades, his three terms as a town trustee, and extensive community ties such as, among other things, the Montauk Friends of Erin, as arguments for his candidacy. Like Mr. DePasquale, he has real estate sales experience.

    As much as we like Mr. Bloecker and value his contribution to East Hampton Town in ways large and small, Mr. DePasquale gains our endorsement by dint of his job-specific qualifications.

Nor do we have any reason to suggest voting for the challenger in the race for County Legislator. George O. Guldi, our man on the Legislature, hasn't had the most formidable opponents since he got into office. Kevin L. McCrudden, his current challenger, brings a PR background to the race but little else.

Mr. Guldi convinces anyone who listens that he loves "the fray." He claims to be the Legislature's busiest member. His work against the Long Island Lighting Company-Long Island Power Authority deal has been impressive, especially given the issue's complexities. His record of hard work and his willingness to represent all the people, speaks for itself. Even Newsday, which doesn't like his opinion about the LILCO-LIPA deal, for example, had no choice but to endorse him.

    A mixed bag of seven statewide ballot propositions will greet voters on Nov. 5. We urge a yes vote on four, no votes on two.        

    Proposal 1 is the most controversial. It would authorize as many as seven new casinos. Reasons most heard in support of the measure are that it would bring much needed tax money to hard-bitten upstate regions, which would get preference in licensing, and that residents are gambling in other states anyway. We reject the latter as insufficient cause.

    Like the lottery, casino gambling tends to prey on those least likely to be able to afford it and brings a host of social and mental health problems that can ultimately be a significant cost to taxpayers and families. Opponents also argue that casinos create unfair competition for nearby smaller businesses. We think that creating jobs and tax revenue through harmful, potentially addictive behavior is unacceptable. Vote no.

    Proposal 2 would grant additional Civil Service credit for military veterans who are certified as disabled after they are hired or receive a promotion. The law now allows preferential hiring credits only if the disability is certified before someone takes a Civil Service post. The measure would close a legal loophole and help recognize the complex and often delayed diagnoses veterans receive, improving their employment opportunities. Yes.

    An end run around state constitutional debt caps, Proposal 3 would allow local governments to ignore payments for sewage-treatment plants in calculating the limits. We think that keeping sewage projects within spending caps is a good thing and protects taxpayers from runaway costs. No.

    Among the ballot measures, Proposal 4 has gotten support from the New York League of Conservation Voters. It would end a longstanding pattern of upstate land lawsuits and provide for additional acres for the Adirondack Park in Hamilton County. It has support from both sides of the State Legislature and from environmental and recreation groups. Yes.

    Proposal 5, which concerns a temporary land swap in the Adirondack Park for mining, has the support of the Steelworkers Union as well as the League of Conservation Voters. In return for the use of 200 acres — and its eventual restoration at little or no cost to the public — the mining company would give 1,500 acres of forest to the state, including two trout streams and access to Jay Mountain. Some environmental activists oppose this, saying it sets a dangerous precedent for the aggressive use of preserved lands. Taking such matters on a case-by-case basis, however, it appears that Proposal 5 is a good deal for New Yorkers, even if future measures of this kind may not be worthy of support. Yes.

    We are all for Proposal 6, which would raise the mandatory retirement age for state judges from 70 (76 in some courts) to 80. Not to denigrate the younger set, but there is something to be said for the wisdom of age. United States Supreme Court justices are allowed to remain on the bench until they themselves deem it time to go. So why not their Empire State compatriots? The New York City Bar Association backs the measure, calling it  a sure-fire way to assure judicial capacity for the foreseeable future. Yes.

    With a pending vacancy on the East Hampton Town Justice Court and no incumbent seeking re-election, two candidates who would be new to the bench hope to don the robe. Town justices preside over everything from routine traffic ticket to violent crime cases, switching gears to handle zoning and quality-of-life matters, in addition to serving as court administrators. For this multifaceted role, justices are paid a salary and benefits in the proposed budget for next year of almost $119,000.

    Both candidates, Carl Irace and Steven Tekulsky, have said they regard the post as part-time, and, unfortunately in our view, agree that they would keep their private practices should they be victorious. To his credit, Mr. Tekulsky explained that he would only handle nonjudicial matters, such as wills and real estate transactions. Mr. Irace, however, has indicated he would continue to take on zoning and criminal cases, albeit in other jurisdictions. That may be wishful thinking. The demands of the office are many; even when one of the two town justices is not on the bench, the work never stops.

    Aside from age, the candidates’ qualifications are rather evenly matched. Mr. Irace, 38, was an East Hampton Town attorney for two years after working in the Suffolk and Bronx district attorneys’ offices. After leaving the town post, he went into private practice and has done pro bono work for local organizations, including the Retreat and Ladies Village Improvement Society. He grew up in Garden City and went to the University of Pennsylvania and the Villanova School of Law.

    Mr. Tekulsky, 60, has practiced law in East Hampton since 1988. Before that, he was an assistant D.A. in Manhattan. His law degree is from St. John’s University. He, too, has done work for local organizations and is a past chief of the East Hampton Fire Department.

    In considering whom to vote for, one should remember the two sides of East Hampton Town Justice Court — traffic and criminal on the one hand and civil and zoning on the other. In matters such as driving while intoxicated and petty theft, what a justice can and cannot do is fairly well circumscribed. Bail amounts can only be within certain limits, and the more serious felony cases are handled elsewhere. That is not to say that temperament and people skills are unnecessary. Particularly in cases involving first brushes with the law, a wise and seasoned response from a judge can help steer a person to a better path.

    In the good-old-boy world that is East Hampton Town ordinance enforcement, and in particular zoning matters, it is a whole different ball game. With only the scantiest of standards and oversight, local justices can improperly insinuate themselves into how cases are handled, granting extra time to admitted violators, for example. Discussions are frequently held out of earshot, with stiff penalties handed out only reluctantly and sometimes only after public outcry. In this, we worry that Mr. Tekulsky’s stronger local ties might be a disadvantage, although voters will have to take him at his word that he would see that the law took precedence over friendships.

    As to Mr. Irace, he ended two undistinguished years as a town lawyer under still-unclear circumstances. He could have an edge in zoning matters precisely because he has more minimal ties to local builders, brokers, and attorneys, although he might have to recuse himself in cases that were before the town attorney’s office when he was there. His campaigning has been tireless, and he makes some good points about managing the court calendar more efficiently, but we are left with a nagging uncertainty about just why he is seeking the town justice post.

    Neither candidate engenders much excitement from us, frankly, though we expect Mr. Tekulsky to win and act responsibly on the bench. Whether he can put an end to the revolving zoning court door only time will tell.

   The lines appear to be becoming clear with the East Hampton Town Trustees standing for access to the beach and Town Hall and some village officials standing with private property owners in the battle for the shoreline. This is a fight worth having, and the trustees have the correct view, the one most consistent with the public interest.

    Two recent decisions underscore this. One is a state judge’s refusal to dismiss a suit brought by the trustees challenging a town zoning board decision to allow a pair of Lazy Point, Amagansett, homeowners to build a seawall. The trustees argued that their permitting authority was circumvented when the Z.B.A. gave the okay. In denying the Z.B.A.’s lawyer’s request to dismiss the suit, Suffolk Supreme Court Justice William B. Rebolini said the trustees had standing to seek to overturn the decision. The case will now go on, with the court taking on the question itself of whether the trustees were improperly shut out of the approval process. We believe they were on this and other matters.

    A similar issue may have arisen last week when the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals hastily okayed the installation of a stone revetment at a disputed property on Georgica Beach. In this case, the trustees may have had less specific authority, but their clerk, Diane McNally, appeared at a hearing this month to plead that the village Z.B.A. take adequate account of the public’s right of passage along the beach and seek the views of competing experts.

    As in the Lazy Point decision, the village officials were sympathetic to the property owners. The wrinkle is, however, that at Georgica the revetment is for a house that is far from threatened, sited as it is a considerable distance back from the dune. The net effect of the zoning board’s shortsighted ruling is that adjacent property owners are likely to seek their own revetments before long, with the resultant loss of the beach like that seen to the east of the Georgica parking lot, at least in winter.

    You might ask why this matters. Well, a good reason is that with routine winter narrowing no one may be able to pass along that section of beach, something that clearly is not in the community’s best interest and something protected by cases the trustees have pursued back to the 18th century.

    Already, miles of bay beaches have been lost to bulkheads in Amagansett and Springs and in the Soundview Drive area of Montauk. A towering seawall along the ocean has utterly blocked those who would walk east of the dirt lot parking area at Montauk’s popular Ditch Plain beach. What will be next? Is this an acceptable result of protecting private land? The East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals should have considered that question.

    If no one else is willing to stand up for the beaches on behalf of all East Hampton residents, thank goodness for the East Hampton Town Trustees. May they carry on the battle for as long as it takes.