Having watched the workings of school boards here for as long as we have, one thing has become obvious: The chummy closeness between elected board members and district administrators is not necessarily a good thing. With this in mind, the over-arching yardstick, if you will, with which we think voters should measure candidates for the boards in Tuesday’s votes is independence. The question should not be who is easiest to get along with. Rather, it should be who is most likely to maintain sufficient distance. Nor should voters view polling as a popularity contest; the most well-known or likeable person may not necessarily be the right one.

    Election to a school board is just the beginning. For those who are successful Tuesday, the work will begin when they are sworn in. Board members find themselves asked to balance among taxpayers’ interests, the needs of the district’s children, and mind-bogglingly complex state and federal rules. Add to this the difficulty inherent in responsibility for personnel, athletics, transportation, and school buildings, and you have what sounds like a full-time job.

    Given the tasks board members are asked to master — and the nearly never-ending roll of scandals, lawsuits, or parent outcries — it is a wonder that anyone at all would stand for election. In fact, we have thought for some time that the structure of school boards in New York State should be overhauled to assure that the policy-making efficiency of elected officials is insulated from the day-to-day fireworks that tend to otherwise consume them. That is a matter for another day. For now, those who do choose to run are to be commended in the strongest terms. On to our recommendations.

    For the East Hampton School Board we endorse Wendy Geehreng and Richard Wilson. Ms. Geehreng works part-time as a pediatric nurse-practitioner and sells real estate here. She is the parent of four children in the district and is smart and energetic. Mr. Wilson taught science in the Sag Harbor schools before retiring. That background, his focus on academics, and his interest in strengthening East Hampton’s already impressive technical and scientific programs makes him a compelling choice.

    In Springs, Jeff Miller and Adam Wilson get our support. We have known Mr. Miller for many years in his capacity as an East Hampton Village employee and as a former chief of the Springs Fire Department. He has strong ties in the hamlet and the ability to look at things with a discerning eye. Mr. Wilson, as a Little League coach and board member, has demonstrated his commitment to Springs and its future generations.

    Montauk presents a tough call with Lee White and Honora Herlihy facing off for one open seat. Mr. White is a member of the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals, where he has demonstrated fair-mindedness and impartiality. Both he and Ms. Herlihy have two small children at the Montauk School. Because we know him better and have confidence in the job he could do on the board, Mr. White gets the edge from us, but only just.

    In Amagansett, Bridgehampton, Wainscott, and Sagaponack the races for school board are uncontested.

    As to the school budgets, the state-imposed discipline of the 2-percent cap on tax-levy increases has appeared to work. Each of the districts within The Star’s coverage area has held its 2013-14 spending plan down in order to keep the tax-levy increase to a single-digit, although some mandated expenses are exempt from the calculation. This is a remarkable turnaround from pre-tax-cap days, when year-to-year hikes of 10 percent or more were common. At this point, there is little opportunity for boards to change the numbers. A defeat in any district would mean the failing budget is put before the voters a second time. If defeated again, state law would require adoption of a severely bare-bones budget. Most districts held ostensibly public budget work sessions during the spring, which few residents attended.

    It should be noted that in too many instances the boards, including East Hampton’s, flatly violated a state law that requires copies of documents under discussion to be provided to those in attendance, including the press. Even after this was pointed out by The Star and other newspapers, boards continued to break the law.

    This should give residents pause and underscore the need for independent-minded candidates who are willing to defy administrators when they seem to be in the wrong. In the end, it is the public’s business they are elected to conduct. 

   Reading the tea leaves, it appears that East Hampton Town may be advertising for a town manager some time soon. Such was the unmistakable impression at a meeting Saturday at which the advantages of such a position were extolled. Hosted by the Group for Good Government, the League of Women Voters, and the East Hampton Business Alliance, a compelling, if mostly one-sided, take on the issue was heard.

    As described at the meeting, a town manager would take over administrative responsibilities, leaving policy, vision, and lawmaking to the five-member town board. Proponents said that removing management duties from the supervisor and town board members would help attract superior candidates to public service, candidates who might otherwise be put off by the day-to-day grind.

    Ideally, a town manager would be apolitical and protected from the political winds while coordinating the various town departments and enforcing local laws. That the presumptive Democratic nominee for supervisor, Larry Cantwell, was the East Hampton Village clerk, then its administrator — essentially, village manager — for 31 years in all is a case in point. Speaking at Saturday’s forum, he said he believed the concept would work if gradually scaled up to Town Hall.

    A strong argument is easy to make for the stability that a manager’s office could provide, especially when many, many town governments have come and gone. The caveat, however, is that despite best intentions, the concentration of authority in any single person has an inherent risk. Moreover, having seen in the last few years how difficult a few vindictive people on a town board can make the lives of staff who have earned their displeasure, we are unsure of whether a manager’s objectivity could be protected. By one calculation, a manager’s post in the wrong hands could be just a sharper needle with which a supervisor or town board could prick staff members.

    The town now has a cadre of department chiefs who, to differing degrees, have been subjected to undue influence. At the same time, a relatively recent reorganization that put Bill Wilkinson confreres in charge of the Building Department, Fire Safety Department, Ordinance Enforcement Department, and the animal control unit has not resulted in obvious improvements. Would a town manager be able to have a positive effect on these departments, or in the conduct of the town attorney’s office, which has been rather shaky of late?

    Despite these concerns, however, East Hampton residents should be in favor of further exploring the concept. In his remarks Saturday, Mr. Cantwell said a safe course might be for someone already working for the town to gradually take on the role of manager. This may be a good approach to something that sounds good but may prove difficult to implement.

   As the East Hampton Town Democrats move rapidly toward a Wednesday nominating convention for town offices, we find ourselves wondering again where the Republicans have gone, and why.

    Though the G.O.P. choices for East Hampton Town Board are apparently settled, just who, if anyone, will run for town supervisor is unknown. The incumbent, Bill Wilkinson, seems fed up with it all and unlikely to seek a third term. Jay Schneiderman flirted with the idea, then opted to seek re-election to the Suffolk Legislature. And, after at least one political newcomer with bright prospects begged off the ticket, no one has stepped forward to carry the party’s banner.

    This worrisome gap at the top can be said to leave residents in a “Where’s Waldo?” moment, as in the popular children’s book in which readers are asked to find a hidden figure. East Hampton’s own Waldo is Len Bernard, the town’s budget officer and the architect of the erstwhile Wilkinson “miracle,” as one media outlet called the change from town budget deficits to surpluses. But he, too, has gone quiet. As a former councilman with long Town Hall experience, Mr. Bernard would appear to be a logical candidate to succeed the unpopular and increasingly acerbic Mr. Wilkinson. And Mr. Bernard even gained the endorsement of this newspaper in an earlier town supervisor run. So why isn’t he in the mix this time around?

    As we have said before in our series of editorials about the 2013 town contest, the challenges facing East Hampton are among the greatest ever. These include what appear to be a looming financial problem, created by the under-funding of necessary expenses and sharp cuts in town staff, which will probably have to be restored. Whoever sits on the town board next will have a lot of explaining to do when taxes have to rise to compensate for the chronic, deliberate penury of the preceding four years.

    On the other hand, Republicans may well enjoy a positive effect when the next, presumably Democratic, administration begins asking staff to enforce town ordinances on such things as nighttime exterior illumination, signs, lot clearing, and illegal expansion of pre-existing, nonconforming businesses — which have all but been ignored in recent years. Whether by design or by accident, the political party in power during the return of effective code enforcement will have plenty of damage control to do.

    Having already secured the Independence Party line, Larry Cantwell, who appears likely to be the Democrats’ nominee for supervisor, is certainly a formidable candidate. His strengths, however, do not entirely explain why the loyal opposition has failed so far to come up with someone at the top of the ticket willing to champion its political ideas. Could it be that they, like Mr. Bernard, already know too much?

   Before food became such a phenomena that there were magazines devoted to it, before cooking shows, way back before locavore was even a word, the potato was king in these parts. We get a glimpse of those days around this time each spring when farmers begin seeding new crops. And it is right around now when passers-by cannot help but reflect on how wonderful it is that any land is left to plow. Thanks to the devotion of a small number of local farming families, there are still people living on the East End who know how it is done. And thanks to public and private efforts, there is prime soil left to be farmed.

    It was with amazing foresight that our communities agreed decades ago to find the money to pay property owners for what are called development rights. In theory, this meant that the land would be farmed in perpetuity. In some cases, the definition of agriculture was stretched beyond what the programs’ creators envisioned: tree farms, giant greenhouses, and high hedges not being exactly what was in mind.

    Nonetheless, the farmland programs, which began with Suffolk County and spread to the towns, were all the more remarkable in that they were set up before the community preservation fund imposed a tax on the area’s real estate excesses. They went forward despite worries that the loss of property taxes from houses that would not be built would place an undue burden on residents. On the contrary, houses with farm-field views, especially those with west-facing sunset vistas, command a premium, and, brokers say, are an easy sell. Development rights purchases also resulted in the reduction in the potential number of residences on the East End, with the demands for public services they would have represented.

    For those passing by to or from work, school, or wherever, just seeing the fields turned once again is confirmation enough that it was all worthwhile.

   It was an otherwise quiet spring day, and a resident dog owner and lover, morning cup of java from Mary’s Marvelous in hand, was standing near the water’s edge at the ocean at Georgica enjoying the quiet and taking in the view. Then, out of nowhere, a small purebred dragging a leash appeared at his side, barking angrily as if the dark shadow itself were at hand. After what seemed like and an inordinate length of time, a woman called the dog over, and without so much as a wave of apology, they walked away. So much for serenity.

    East Hampton Village officials, considering incidents along the lines of the foregoing and the piles of droppings some irresponsible handlers allow their dogs to leave behind, have been mulling tighter restrictions, among them a rule that would require the animals to be kept on leashes until they were at least 500 feet from a road end or parking lot. Unfortunately, a 500-foot rule, or even a 200-foot variation thereof, is essentially unworkable in one obvious aspect: Many dogs when let off their leashes immediately begin joyful sprints up and down the beach. Without a doubt, some will race back into the restricted area in their exuberance.

    Self-policing, while nice to fantasize about, does not work in the end; dogs — and some of their masters — do not always follow the rules. Though there would be yowls and howls of protest, we can envision the day that seasonal, 24-hour bans on dogs at the most-popular bathing beaches, defined as beaches with lifeguards, are implemented. It seems inevitable, and not too far away.

    As with so many other things, if potential public nuisances such as dogs and bonfires are allowed on the beach, it falls to local government to make sure some beachgoers’ fun does not impinge on the rights of others — including, if need be, sending village or town employees on the taxpayers’ dime out to pick up the messes themselves.

   As spring on the South Fork really gets under way, a jarring discrepancy between how we think about this area and how run down it looks in many places is becoming apparent. For a resort and second-home community of such renown, East Hampton Town is looking a little down in the dumps these days. Litter is everywhere. An increasing welter of utility lines mar the overhead view. Roadsides, at least those outside the incorporated villages, are left without mowing or maintenance. Trees downed by Hurricane Sandy, now more than six months on, are still in evidence.

    Our streetscapes, though they are likely to be visitors’ first impressions, are becoming a blight across the town. This is sharply at odds with how the area is perceived by outsiders and portrayed in the national media — and something that must be included in the conversation as the campaigns for elected office proceed this year.

    Compare, for example, the roadsides in Bridgehampton and Wainscott. Both are bisected by the state’s Route 27, both are part of their respective towns, yet Bridgehampton is tidy and pleasing to the eye while Wainscott, well, looks like hell. So, too, does much of Springs-Fireplace Road and some places in Montauk. It is a shame and an embarrassment.

    Current town officials should be held accountable for not doing more. But, if they respond at all, they are likely to engage in a reflexive spasm of buck-passing, protesting that many of the eyesores are on county or state roads and, in any event, the financial crisis touched off in Supervisor Bill McGintee’s era cut too deeply into the budget to do much about it. To this we say, nonsense. It costs nothing for town officials to badger and browbeat the state and county, as well as the utility companies, in the hope of action, and as far as we know, they have not done so. Moreover, the visual hodgepodge of illegal signs that tart up many roadsides are entirely within local authority.

    Southampton Town and the Villages of East Hampton and Sag Harbor manage to keep things looking good. So what’s their secret? Why can’t East Hampton Town Hall follow suit? Is the solution a sort of townwide Ladies Village Improvement Society? An increased mandate for the citizens litter committee? These are questions the November hopefuls need to address. Voters should ask for answers.

   After an unnecessarily messy period in which the East Hampton School District denied tenure to a well-regarded elementary school principal, stumbled into a likely lawsuit by bus personnel, and repeatedly defied state law on sharing documents under discussion at open meetings, it is little surprise that as many as five newcomers will seek places on the school board next month. Such moments come and go with school boards, and East Hampton is joined by Wainscott in illegally withholding documents and by Montauk in generating parents’ ire, in the latter case over class sizes.

    By their very nature, school bureaucracies are unwieldy and their operations are difficult for board members to fathom, let alone manage. In Sag Harbor, the school board has been torn apart by disagreement and resignations. Nevertheless, East Hampton’s board strikes us as particularly malleable and not prone to learn from its mistakes, especially on personnel and business matters. For example, some have said that a multimillion-dollar lawsuit with a former construction manager could have been averted had the board followed the state Open Meetings Law when it decided some years ago to fire him. The demotion of Gina Kraus from John Marshall Elementary School principal to teacher blindsided her and parents — and touched off a furor that might have been avoided had basic procedures been followed.

    It may appear a trifling observation, but it is our opinion that in allowing the district’s superintendent and business manager to sit during board meetings at the dais with the elected members is both a practical and symbolic mistake. Boards are supposed to act as the community’s representatives, seeking information from administrators and balancing their proposals with taxpayers’ and students’ needs. Giving administrators equal standing creates subtle pressure on board members to side with them in disputes and to vote the way the administrators would like. We would like to hear prospective board members’ views on this issue.

    The watchdog role of a school board should not be abandoned. Having the superintendent and business manager  sit to the side would make it clear that they are there to assist the board, or perhaps better yet, asking them to sit in the audience, shoulder to shoulder with other staff members, parents, and the press, may help remind everyone who is supposed to be in charge.

   The united call from a number of South Fork environmental groups that the Town of East Hampton proceed no further on coastal policy until at least one top expert has signed on as an adviser is welcome. Post-Hurricane Sandy, East Hampton has been among many shoreline communities rushing to rebuild and reinforce damaged property, in many cases without taking the time to be sure the work will not do more harm than good over the long term. East Hampton Town has fast-tracked scores of permits, and more are headed to the zoning board of appeals for review. Even if the Planning Department were fully staffed, it would be hard-pressed to keep up and not make mistakes, which makes us wonder about how the depleted and brow-beaten staff in its Pantigo Place offices have been able to fulfill their role.

    Town board’s attention has been centered on downtown Montauk, where several hotels and residential complexes are increasingly threatened by erosion. Property owners there, backed by Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, favor using rocks to build a seawall of some kind close to their foundations. Such work is banned in the area by the town’s own Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and they want it amended.

    One property has already been fortified by a long line of concrete septic rings, which were supposed to be temporary, although a precise time span was not specified. Even with State Department of Environmental Conservation approval, these rings were of questionable legality — and what was worse, they were not studied for their impact on the beach, neighboring properties, or the environment. As experience shows, where shore-hardening structures, such as rocks, bulkheads, or septic rings, are placed, the public beach quickly narrows, or, in some cases, actually disappears.

    Downtown Montauk is not alone by a long shot in being in harm’s way. Nor is it the most threatened portion of the town’s coastline. Beaches were sharply eroded by Sandy and the subsequent winter storms in many locations. These include most north and east-facing stretches, such as along Soundview Drive and Captain Kidd’s Path in Montauk, Mulford Lane at Lazy Point, Gardiner’s Bay in Amagansett, and Gerard Drive in Springs. You can expect property owners in these places and others to pay very careful attention to just how far things are allowed to progress in Montauk.

    Town board Republicans have made it clear that they would like to allow the affected Montauk owners to do whatever it takes to fortify their properties, the public right to the beach be damned. Mr. Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley favor letting the Army Corps of Engineers lead the way without the town’s seeking another opinion. And Councilman Dominick Stanzione has expressed doubt about hiring an expert whose views might differ from that of the Corps — the same organization that has taken nearly 50 years to complete the much-heralded Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study and brought you the Hurricane Katrina disaster. If that is the kind of expertise the town is being offered, we say no thank you.

    Coastal policy is the big enchilada for East Hampton Town, the 600-pound gorilla, the whole kit and caboodle. It is not something residents can trust to an anonymous federal bureaucracy or accept in the lack of the best-qualified experts and deliberate study. Mr. Wilkinson, Ms. Quigley, and Mr. Stanzione’s apparent abdication of this complex responsibility may be perhaps the most damaging legacy they will leave unless they change course immediately, call in the best available professionals, and embrace policies based on science and the entire community’s interests.

   During a meeting of the East Hampton Village Board last week, two members of the public spoke of the dangers that the continuing increase in automobile and truck traffic poses to pedestrians and bicyclists. Among other things, they suggested that bike lanes were needed. Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. told them to take their ideas to Village Police Chief Gerard Larsen. This is something that should be explored, but it will take more than a knowledgeable law enforcement officer to figure out how to solve Main Street’s problems.

    The State of New York owns the road, and it is therefore incumbent on the village to get the state involved. The danger posed by the close proximity of moving traffic to parked cars in the business district is serious. In recent years there have been a number of incidents in which motorists struck open car doors when drivers failed to check if the road was clear. It is harrowing for all involved. The sudden appearance of a person getting out of a car can bring traffic to a dangerous stop. Fortunately, no one has been killed — yet.

     Traffic laws are designed to protect drivers from themselves. So are safety rules, such as staying one car length behind the car in front of you for every 10 miles per hour of speed. State law makes it the parked-car driver’s responsibility to look before opening the door, which sounds like common sense, except that drivers are not conditioned to such narrow lanes. The Main Streets of Sag Harbor and Southampton, and essentially all the other main drags from Water Mill to Montauk, are single-lane roads that, perhaps paradoxically, allow for more space between parked and moving cars. Only the Village of East Hampton has two lanes each way, which sets the stage for too many close shaves.

    Given how wide East Hampton’s Main Street is, traffic engineers ought to be able to come up with a better scheme than wide center turning lanes, which may, in fact, exacerbate the problem. Would eliminating them provide space for bike lanes? Would narrowing sidewalk aprons be feasible? It’s undoubtedly too late for many changes to take place this season. Let’s hope for improvements by summer 2014 and, in the meantime, keep our fingers crossed that no one is hurt.

   A proposal unveiled last week for an 89-unit housing complex in Amagansett for the well-off 55-and-older set is — there’s no other word for it — audacious. And, once you get past the shock factor, it has to rank among the just plain most-unwelcome and ill-conceived notions to come down the pike in a long time.

    Though a formal proposal is a good way off, a representative of the Connecticut firm that bought the 24-acre parcel last year crossed Long Island Sound to make a pitch for it at the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee and the hamlet’s school board. The maybe $100 million project would require that the town create a new zoning classification — senior citizens housing — because the limit under its current three-acre, single-family zoning would be something on the order of just seven houses.

    Beyond the carrot of maybe $2 million in new taxes, it is hard to see who would benefit from a new residential village other than the developers and a few real estate agents. At $850,000 to $1.8 million per unit, there are likely to be few who consider themselves local able to afford the buy-in cost. Promises of adjacent affordable housing or payments to some sort of unspecified do-good fund are far too speculative to be taken seriously.

     The East Hampton Town Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2005, should be a significant impediment to the out-of-town developer’s plans. In its section on the Montauk Highway corridor in Amagansett, the plan says that the town should “restrict the amount of commercial and residential development which could impair the functionality of the town’s main roadway and change the intimate, small scale character of the area to a congested retail strip mall.” Further, and regardless of the village-like layout the developers have brought forward, the comprehensive plan advises the town to “reduce the residential build-out in order to protect the natural and cultural features of Amagansett.”

    The three-acre zoning on the parcel was the result of a specific recommendation in the comprehensive plan, which said that rezoning the area would “help limit the number of new curb cuts, turning movements, and development potential along the town’s main roadway.” There is no way that a development that would add perhaps as many as two vehicles per unit to the mix is consistent with the town’s master planning document.

    And it gets worse for the Connecticut firm in the comprehensive plan: “In addition, this land is ranked as prime farmland, rated by the United States Department of Agriculture as the best land for raising crops in New York State, and is part of Suffolk County’s agricultural industry, ranked first in New York State. The farming landscape and industry help to maintain Amagansett’s rural quality, scenic vistas, and unique sense of place.”

    Regarding the affordable-housing-suitable designation that once was applied to this property, the comprehensive plan says its three-acre zoning will help reduce the “fragmentation, alteration, and elimination of this valuable farmland resource and industry while helping to protect scenic views.” And, by the way, it also says that the natural characteristics of the property make it “unsuitable for development of affordable housing,” or, one can presume, a crowded cluster of cottages and town house apartments for deep-pocketed aging baby boomers.

    Considering what common sense and the comprehensive plan dictate, the developer’s proposal would appear to be well over the horizon of what is in the best interests of the community or the tens of thousands of visitors who pass by on their way to and from Montauk every summer and well into the fall. It is an idea totally out of character and scale, and we think it’s safe to say that it sharply contradicts what most residents would want. The zone change on which this scheme is predicated should be dead on arrival.